Vajrahridaya

Then why did Nagarjuna the inventor Madhyamika say that only Buddhadharma leads to freedom from Samsara and Hinduism does not? He said that, in no uncertain terms. Riddle me that. Also, no you'd have to have your own realizations of the non-abiding flow. Sorry, from the very beginning the Buddha said that there is no static Self, or self. You should read some Pali Suttas, in context!

Wow... good friend. Indeed. Well, don't forget that this is merely the first noble truth and there are 4. Anyway... I do wish you all the best. It's true that most times out of many, people read information before they are ready for it and run away instead of having realization. It's an incredible blessing that your friend was there to catch you. WOW!! I'm pretty eye watery right now.

Yes, I know, because we offer merit to endless cycling in order to maintain a conscious merit body made of refined bliss. The Pralaya's happen on denser dimensions, but not Buddharealm dimensions. The Pralaya happens to those that still have a clinging to identity, generally by that point, the identity becomes formless, thus these beings actually cause the pralaya through there intense idea to merge into a blissful oneness. To Buddhism that's the subtlest type of ignorance.

That's Hinduism, NOT Buddhism. That's called supression into seed form, and that my dear becomes that cause of your future recycling once the cosmos goes through Pralaya, because you identify with some non-conceptual ground of bliss, you will rest there for a while, and you won't have a body and no thought. This according to Buddhism is called the Samsaric formless Jhana realms, where you can't even hear the Dharma because you've dumbed and deafened yourself into a formless bliss realm. This is NOT Buddhist liberation and never has been. You don't read much of the actual teachings of the Buddha, this I can tell. Shunyata is not an inherent self existence beyond time and space. That's the Jhana of nothingness, or the Jhana of neither perception nor non-perception. Read more Buddhism. The 8th Consciousness also is not to be taken as a Self in the Yogachara schematic, and one must couple the meditative path of Chittamatra with Madhyamika as not to grasp at a self in the formless jhana's. The Alaya Vijnana is NOT inherent reality of all being. It's the personal seed repository, made of the seeds in non-conceptual forms. Because in Buddhism, karma penetrates even non-conceptuality. Thus the formless Samadhi's are not considered absolute in Buddhism. As there is no absolute ground of pure being, and that is the ground of pure realization, not an essence, but a deeply intuitive understanding of dependent origination/emptiness which is non-abiding. You keep trying to make Shunyata some abiding thing. But, Nagarjuna was very clear that even Shunyata is not inherently existent. I've had those experiences regularly before and they are very blissful, they are considered the oceanic bliss of a Brahma, but it's a mistaken cognition according to Buddhism, and this was stated over 2,000 years ago. You don't read Buddha's teachings at all. That is quite clear. The blissful realizations of Buddhism is subtler, and to see Dharmakaya directly has nothing to do with merging with Brahman or thinking that I am you and you are me. I know, because I used to directly experience this interpretation of samadhi regularly and then I realized dependent origination to some degree and understood what the experience actually was. My consciousness was just blooming past phenomena and itself because it's all inherently empty of real substance. I wasn't merging with anything... I was just seeing the transparent quality of all things and the luminous nature of consciousness when it de-compounds from fixation, even on itself. P.s. I didn't erase my post where I said that Hindu thinking is sloppy, it seems that posts just erase themselves after a certain time as I can't even find your Advaita vs. Buddhism thread for some reason?

I said, "Sloppy Hindu Thinking" and you took that personally because you have an identity surrounding that being a "BRAHMIN". I meant the logic of Brahman based theology was sloppy. Not Indians... WOW!! How many times does one have to quote from these great beings to get it through to you that, your assertion is the neo-Vedanta, and that Buddhism has never agreed with neither the old Vedanta that disagreed with Buddhism and the neo-Vedanta that thinks it's all one. The Dalai Lama said in no uncertain terms that the Brahmayana, or absorption path leads to higher rebirth but not liberation because it does not understand dependent origination. Your still thinking it only applies to the reflections in the mirror, but it applies to the mirror as well. Your assertion that Madhyamika leads to the same place as Advaita Vedanta is completely false as well. Nagarjuna himself said that the Hindu path's only lead to higher rebirth as well. I could keep on going on, but we've already done this and your identity to Vedanta is too strong, so... it's fine. You'll get a higher rebirth, and greater faculties through your view. That's fine. I wish you blessings on your trek! That is catagorically and unequivically NOT Shunyata. Where you get that idea is from Hindu commentators on Buddhist texts. Shunyata has NO inherent existence, it's not even an it, it's a way of explaining dependent origination. LOL! Oh boy... Never mind.

From the perspective of Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen, you never stop acting in the play, you just either are liberated in it, or bound up in it. There's never a point where one just stops and is some non-conceptual formlessness, unless of course your mind thinks that's the end all be all, then of course that's what you'll get for a while. But, then, back to reality... duh duh. There's also never a point where you become actually non-existent. I mean... of course you are already kind of non-existent in a sense of identifying with what you deem to be yourself right now, because this moment is non-existent when the next arises, even though the next is based on the previous, thus neither truly inherently exist. But you know the yadda... blah, blah. Buddhas don't experience the big suck. Which in Sanskrit is called, the Pralaya.

No, I've always made points against your assertions and have had very little to say about your personally. I've also quoted the Dalai Lama, the Buddha, Nagarjuna and others to support my argument. The Dalai Lama disagrees with you, Buddhist scholars disagree with you, historical Buddhist masters disagree with you as well as current Buddhist Masters. Advaita Vedanta is not the middle way of Buddhism and does not lead to the same realization.

Your letting your animal out I see. Ad hominem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument. An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion. It does not include arguments posed by a source that contradict the source's actions.

Ah, the ad-homs and personal pride comes out. So defensive. It's amazing how subjective your view is, because there are plenty that have another opinion about this "wannabe internet zealot". Who's right, and who's wrong? Those that agree with me say, "oh wonderful" and those that don't, "he's so stupid". Praise and blame... I just don't use the sanskrit words mostly and get into the gunas because that confuses a lot of people, the different tattvas, and etc. Because it all comes down to the difference that Hinduism posits a real and eternal non-phenomenal, non-conceptual unitary consciousness behind everything as a supreme cause, which makes all branches of Hinduism, no matter how complicated they get in their language and metaphysics, eternalism and therefore a subtle extreme. No matter how non-conceptual you want to make it, it's still an "it" in the mind stream of the experiencer of this nirvikalpa samadhi which reifies the experience and causes future absorptions and unconscious re-births. Vasistha's Yoga translated by Swami Venkatesananda in the big long grey version is actually quite excellent, you should read it. It puts all the different branches of Hinduism together in a seamless way. It's quite good for a theistic approach. Anyway... You can hide behind insults all you want. But, nitty gritty I can get. I can throw out endless quotes from endless scriptures. As I have a pretty extensive library. Still, both Abhinavagupta and Shankaracharya posit a real, self existing source of all existence that all beings are one with, thus is not a middle way. Buddhism does not and that's the rundown. Ciao.

Yes, both Buddhism and Hinduism talks about that in their cosmology.

Yes, no intelligent design. Buddhism see's cosmos as a deeply ordered chaos, but only ordered by the beings that make up the cosmos, not by a transcendent being, or supreme cause. We are the designers, all of us together, including bugs and animals and microbes... blah, blah. But yeah... yes, everything is everything and it all evolves, though not one, not two. Just endless cycling. I'm sure you were my father in one life or another. What gets interesting about Buddhism, is split mind-streams and having multiple simultaneous lives. It gets a bit tricky and can lead to insanity if one thinks about it too much.

Nope, Buddhists disagree with each other all the time. HAHA!! Not so much the high ups, those that have fully transcended Buddhism as a mere belief system. They'll disagree with others, but not each other, because they see right through each others views. In Buddhism there is no ultimate truth that transcends relative truths. Again you are merely coming from your categorical framework. There is only ultimate realization of the relativity of all phenomena and non-phenomenal experiences, and there is no Self there to grasp as an ultimate I. Nah... you need to read more from deeply realized Buddhist Masters, such as the Buddha even, and Nagarjuna. They certainly disagree with you. It's interesting, I'm more studied in your religion than you are. Over the last few months, I've sold well over a hundred books on Hindu thought on Ebay, all of them I've read, many multiple times. I spent years in retreat just meditating on these Vedantic truths without any TV, much socializing other than to discuss these Vedantic truths. I understand your standpoint very well. You think an ultimate Truth is some transcendent experience beyond all things, that all things truly are. In Buddhism, liberation is not an identity with a non-conceptual state of consciousness that subsumes everything. You have yet to understand infinite regress. In Vedanta, there is still this mysterious will behind everything that is God. That means Vedanta is classified as Eternalism and is not the middle way of the Buddha. Ciao.

A persons mind-stream experiences what it has invested in it'self and environment. Accidents don't really happen. It has nothing to do so much with belief as it does insight into realms of perception of connection that transcend what is now deemed normal human experience. This level of belief based on experience limited by the 5 senses is culturally conditioned and believed to be true, because it can be viewed under a micro-scope. Yet, scientists still don't know what's going on and become more and more confused as they keep changing their minds about the laws of physics when they find a deeper law to subvert the previous law. The things that a personal consciousness experiences is not separate from that consciousness. That baby somehow put his or herself there and that babies soul was not born right at that point of birthing from the mother. That baby has had endless previous lives. Buddhism goes deeper than this because we get into what the soul is made of. But that would be another discussion. I don't expect you to believe this. But, I feel that the materialist view is based on very limited level of perception which carries it's own beliefs based on this limitation and interprets circumstances through a limited criteria of limited experience of human potentiality. Buddha's teachings were an attempt to explain direct experience. For me it's not a belief system, it's more of a conceptual display of insight. I've seen many of my own past lives directly through meditation and these experiences started when I was very, very young spontaneously due to the fact that I meditated in past lives. Before I read a book on spirituality or religion, I was having insights into the nature of the different realms and writing my opinion papers on this in class, only later to find out that these opinions were in fact quite matched with ancient Indian belief systems. For me, the condition of direct experiencing and insight pre-existed the doctrine. In this life at least. Reincarnation and karma has always made sense on an intuitive level that is deeply complex since I was 5 or 6. It has first something to do with a state of mind before the creation of morality. A state of mind that feels separate, and fearful, angry and jealous, emanates a type of energy and action that bares fruit, and this rotten fruit influences everyone but is really bad for the person who made it because that's what they have to eat in their own garden. So, morality was a human attempt at making for a better society where these rotten fruits didn't flourish and pollinate fertile soil everywhere. Consciousness is deeply subtle. Scientists want to say that it's a function of the brain, but no, the brain/body complex is a function of consciousness. All the best! LOL! Stars don't have past lives other than that of energy in another form. Because you haven't seen your past lives directly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Past lives is not a lame idea, it's a direct experience of yogi's that is as clear as day and explains a deeper order to why things occur. To think that you are born and you die and that you are just physical, and your consciousness is a mere function of your physicality and not subtler than body is a limitation based upon a limited level of insight into one's own consciousness. To hold up the ever changing science as the new religion that will explain everything, would be silly, because science is as well as matter a function of consciousness, not the other way around. Scientists still don't know what the heck consciousness is and how it really works. Only consciousness can know consciousness, not microscopes and physical tools. They may be able to peel away layers of physical functionality, but consciousness remains ever slippery.

LOL! We are not all one non-conceptual essence. It has nothing to do with frameworks. You don't see the meaning of the words being relayed to you by Me, Xabir, and Michaelz. You just see framework because well... that's all we can use here are words that attempt to point to a realization beyond words. Vedanta reifies non-conceptual experience as a universal essence that subsumes everything and everyone, Buddhism does not. Hinduism sees one mind stream, Buddhism see's infinite mind streams that have no beginning but are all inherently empty, yet connected, but not one. Buddhist Cosmology transcends a causeless cause. But, I understand, you strongly identify with being a Hindu with a family lineage that is Brahmin. It's very entwined with your self, Self identity. It would cause you a period of suffering forcing you to really let go and self examine that would probably be deeper than my period of suffering that it took me to go through to transcend my birth religion of Advaita Vedanta Universalism and truly experientially understand what the Buddha was talking about.

But of course she did, through actions in past lives she was born to certain parents and underwent certain actions based upon reactions, based upon conditionings. A person her age without that much self awareness or awareness of consequences was reaping the fruit of past lives. Of course she had something to do with the occurrence, because it happened to her, she directly effected the outcome through a complex layer of cause and effect. It's both direct and indirect as influence runs both ways add infinitum. If you think birth of the body is the beginning, and if you think it's death is the end. Then that's a revelation of an attachment to identity with the physical appearance. As if that's the true self... When one thinks that and relates all experience as starting there and ending with that's end, then there's going to be confusion and a belief in, "things just happen". If you understand re-birth, then you understand that, yes... she did have the latent karma to manifest that circumstance due to actions in previous lives. I can understand how hard this is to grasp if one's personal experience is limited to 5 sense relation and perception. Yes, but Buddhism also empties the basis of experience through dependent origination and does not see an inherent experiencer of the freedom from suffering seemingly external circumstances. Other religions, generally speaking, reify an observer, a primal conscious being of some sort. Solidify a soul or essence... while Buddhism does not.

Buddhism never say's that the universe is not real, or an illusion. Just it's like an illusion because as soon as you have seen it, it has already changed. All current events are based upon previous events so do not inherently exist, but merely exist relative to endless history. Thus, are not solid, but ever changing impermanence. To say, "like an illusion" is not saying it's literally an illusion, that would mean an inherent non-existence. Which of course there is no such things as inherent non-existence. Just, does not inherently exist on it's own with it's own self essence. There is only change, so the illusion is that things are solid when you should know as a scientist mathematician, they are not. The five senses do fool us to a certain extent as my solid oak table is indeed moving and changing as I speak, even though I can't see this minute process physically without some sort of visual aid that focuses my perception into a subtler than 5 sense dimension.

AAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! BAAAAAAAAACKOOOOOOOCK!!! OUTCH!!!

Yes, it must be. As there is no effect without a cause. Things don't just happen out of the blue without any cause. Yes, through past lives, through the parents. It's also at the same time not just their karma but the karma of all beings, as we are all connected. Thus compassion is necessary and because it's also their karma, they can work on themselves, instead of wasting energy in the blame game. Oh, it's God's fault, it's the parents fault. There is a cause for that soul (accumulation of non-physical notions throughout endless rebirths as an individual mind stream) that is older than the physical body. When a baby is born that doesn't mean that consciousness or mind stream was born just then, that's just a new house reflective for that "soul" made of previous causes and effects that are causes for future effects. That's horrifying because then one just succumbs to helplessness and nihilism. There's no effect without a cause. What pure chance, what does that mean? If you understand karma and re-birth, it is the answer. But one would have to meditate deeply and see more deeply into one's being as we see the universe as we ourselves see ourselves. As deeply as we see within is as deeply as we see without. Your interpretation of our words and inability to see the far reaching ramifications that transcend the page you are viewing is merely your own subjectivity. It's not the understanding of karma and rebirth that is wrong, it's how it's interpreted and used. To use it as an excuse to be apathetic and not compassionate is a mis-use of the understanding of karma and re-birth. If one were to truly see karma and rebirth and how it works on deeply complex levels that transcend linear thought in deep states of meditation. Compassionate action becomes the reaction and this is what alleviates harmful karmas both to oneself and one starts to help others as well. If you don't yet understand Buddhism, or have not studied it much or meditated deeply as of yet. How can you know what Buddhahood means and how a Buddha sees the world, or what awakening actually means in Buddhism, or Taoism? I would just say, be patient and try to go deeper within with a good teacher, guide and good books by great beings. It may become clear someday in a state of eureka! The epiphanies are deeper than the words that lead you there.

Yes, but that happened thousands upon thousands of years ago. So the initial cultural seeds sprouted somewhat similar trees in two different regions of the planet. Of course change for thousands of years in culture in the East was not nearly as fast as in the recent European and American West and Globalization. We've experienced more change as a global humanity within 1 hundred years than we have in thousands upon thousands of years put together. There has been change, but not nearly as intense as recently I think. No I'm not, I'm inherently empty of any static essential nature. Brahman is a misinterpretation of spiritual experience according to Buddhadharma and it's notion, philosophy and practice does not lead to Buddhahood. Besides, it's not my misinterpretation. All over Vedanta literature and poetry there is talk of "merging with Brahman". Of course I understand, it's merely recognition that the drop is the ocean type of things and it's more of a poetic description. But, non-the-less, it's not the same goal as Buddhism.

Because nothing happens without a cause. The morality is individual and has to do with the persons state of intentionality, and attachments from within. It is mind made, not merely the action itself, but the entire being, and how it's aligned to whatever structure of notion within the conscious, subconscious and unconscious spectrum of the individual in motion is. There is no effect without a cause. That would mean things stand alone and arise from their own essence and we know through observation that all things from come each other add infinitum without a single cause. Even seemingly random events are only called random because they don't follow linear framework, but even non-linear abstraction has a framework, it's just more complex and pulls from a wider range within it's causes for seemingly out of order chaos. You know the person who came up with the Chaos theory also said that Chaos only appears chaotic upon initial view, but if one looks deeper, there is a pattern that emerges, even if deeply complex. This modern usage of the term Chaos to suggest complete disorder is a mis-use of the term as it was intended upon it's creation. There are still causes and conditions surrounding the creation of what the term describes as certain aspects of the universal workings. Read this if you wish... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory It's not that the universe is moral. It's that the universe is connected. The more a being realizes interconnectivity, the more that one will act in alignment with interconnectivity and thrust actions, intentions, thoughts and notions out that reflect this interconnectivity which is generally deemed as "Virtue". Because you don't hurt what you recognize intimate connection with, unless you hate yourself, which has it's own causes to that effect. It's not as linear as all that. It's quite complex and the doctrine of karma has many layers. There's the karma of body, mind, history, group karma, karma just means action. Every action has an equal but opposite reaction. It's not so black and white, it's quite complex as each point in the universe can lead through contemplation to all other infinite points simultaneously. As anything is supported by everything else. Karma doesn't judge good or bad, we do. Things just happen through a complex order of cause and effect. But for conscious beings, it also has to do with the state of consciousness. So, evil intent, so called evil emotions, selfish actions also bare fruit and effect physical events, as all layers are interconnected.

Not six years. Endless becoming. One has to take into account past lives, otherwise the doctrine of karma makes no sense and the idea of unconnected choatic events (shit happens) starts to rule one's view. One spins into Nihilism and forgets purpose.

One reifies a cause. Say's we are all one mind stream, that we all merge with the divine essence at the end of the cosmic eon. One reifies non-conceptuality as the basis of all being. The other as in Buddhism, does none of this. That's just simply put. If it hasn't become clear through the abundant explanations displayed in the entire forum. Then, hey! That's fine. You might want to read, Advaita vs. Buddhism thread. That's awesome! I love that neck of the woods as well. Everything is so pure and beautiful, aside from the high level of radiation due to the fact that the government ships tons of nuclear waste there from the entire country to be dumped in Carlsbad caverns. Los Alamos (where there's a nuclear lab) where I went to school for a year and a half has one of the highest rates of cancer in the country if not the world. But yes, besides the many crazy things that happen in NM, it's scenery is amazing! But what a play of our own creation, such a beautiful place, yet abused by our enslavement to convenience. The Native American spiritual traditions there in that neck of the woods are quite amazing. In many ways like Tibetan Buddhism in fact. They even dress the same as Tibetans and have many of the same cultural traditions and even a few of the words are the same. It's really odd. These cultures grew out of totally different regions of the planet! Yet if you look at Navaho native dress and Tibetan native dress, and even the way they kind of look similar. It's quite odd.

It's not that it doesn't exist. It's not that one should be either naive, or jaded. But rather if this is all one focuses on, this is all that will manifest for one. You will see the dross and not the gold and you won't even bother cooking it up to purity and profiting at all.

Blooming leaves made of my (your) own neuro-sea.

True that! How many times have I been close to my death bed? Too many to remember right now to write down. I was torn out my mothers womb in a Cesarean section and died because the umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck and choked me. So I was rushed to the emergency and was revived. I then because my Mom was too busy contemplating her own life, got my parents attention through self poisonings at the ripe early age of 2/3 to 5. Was rushed to the hospital on many occasions to get my stomach pumped and a coin taken out of my throat. I then was left with my father who left me at home to eat candy and watch TV, and he neglected to bathe me, so I walked out on the street with nappy blonde dread locks and my toes popping out my shoes to beg for quarters so that I could play video games at nearby arcades in San Francisco. This was all before my Mom finally saw the horrors of this and picked me up to take me to New Mexico at the age of 5 to live in areas where poor Mexicans would role down the road and shoot their guns at random anywhere and drugs and murder were prevalent all around. Anyway, that's just the beginning. Let's see what level of contemplation occurs when these people see death face to face and see brains falling out of a skull?? With a sense of wisdom for me though, as my only savior is probably the fact that my mom had a deep spiritual current. Anyway... circumstances well realized brings deeper understanding about the nature of circumstance in all it's incredibly complex order only seemingly chaotic glory! Get that through ya matrix!