Vajrahridaya

No, part of his established vinaya for both lay folk and monks, as in the rules of conduct is not injesting any intoxicant that can impair clarity, which does not include food. Though it's true over eating can impair clarity to some degree and even kill one over time. But, that's not what it means. Any substance that radically effects judgement in any way, seemingly enhanced based upon the chemical or slowed, is seen as something that obscures true and focused practice. With that said, there are certain tantric practicioners that partook in various things such as drinks and poisons or drugs, but only to test their steady state of mind or to transcend previous rules to break an established limitation of enlightened perception. Or to better see upon the edge of death the functioning of the body/brain/mind weave. But that also is very different and has it's own context. This second one is all to often abused by practiioners who think they are highly evolved enough to do such things. I am one who has had such delusions so can speak from personal experience. Though everything is worthy of learning of oneself from.

This is why Buddhism doesn't talk about a God, or reify it's deities, buddhas and bodhisattvas with the idea of being a form representation of a supreme cause. Because for Buddhism, there is no supreme cause both epistimologically and ontologically. But, because the entirety is dependently originated and inherently empty and nothing can be established, thus anything can be established and experientially reified to incredible levels of subtlety, without actually inherently being.

Yes, he vehementaly denied emptiness as it exposes the complete lack of an ultimate concept. An ultimate non-concept or concept are both subverted by pratitsamutpada. There is no true identity that is all things uniformly in Buddhism, epistemologically as beyond the limits of knowledge or ontologically within the realm of discussion. Emptiness is never established at all, intuitively or conceptually. There is complete liberation from grasping both dualistically on a conscious level that expresses thought, and deep within the formless consciousness, it does not grasp at it's own shinning and establish a kingdom of "I" there, only relatively does it. Only ultimately when it's seen through it's own ultimacy as I explained above to marblehead. One has ultimate eternal function omnisciently as a realized being who has made the ultimate sacrifice to serve the seeming cosmos for seeming eternity. In Hindu cosmology even the long lived gods have life spans, don't last eternally, because they all believe in a formless non-conceptual ground of being that is static, beyond time that is the same for all beings simultaneously. Which is a mistaken interpretation of deep meditative states which is why the Buddha said none of the meditative absorptions were ultimate realization, even infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, infinite space, infinite beyond perception and non-perception which is where the Vedantin's think is the ultimate Truth, that meditative absorption of beyond perception and non-perception. But the Buddha said that even this is dependently originated and inherently empty, even timeless, even non-phenomena is experientially emptied of being established as an ultimate. Thus in Buddhism there are infinite mind streams and not one mind stream. No, you are misinterpreting because of your doctrinal conditioning. I was raised through Hindu Tantra and had full blown kundalini awakening at the age of 13/14, before that I had experiences such as having visions that all being came from one being at the age of 6/7. At 10 I sat at the feet of a master and she played with the crown of my head for an hour and I disapeared for that hour. All these experiences, including the shaktipat at 14 which was a meditative absorption into a formless jhana which resulted in an amazing sense of bliss, freedom, perfection in identity, a love and compassion for everyone, and a bewilderment that if all being was this freedom, how come people suffer? All I wanted to do was serve. Then I left the ashram and forgot the experience even happened for 7 years. After I remembered the experience at 20... I followed Shaiva Tantra with intensity and had many experiences that reinforced this subtle grasping at a subtle beyond phenomena identity. Only about 6 years ago did I start having experiences that revealed the Truth of Buddha's teaching, and it was experiences that are not contained by books, or doctrine though explained by books and doctrine. These Gods that teach of a primordial cause of being are merely first borns out of the potentiality left from the previous cosmic eon. They awake from the potentiality and think they have opened their eyes to manifest the cosmos but they don't remember the previous cosmic cycle. The Buddha was the first one to talk about remembering lives from previous cosmic cycles. Until the alaya vinjnana or storehouse consciousness that may appear as a blue bindu, that all being eminates from and subsides into is emptied of any Self, then one's experience is going to be that of the cycling of existence. I eminate from thee and I subside in thee, in the beginning love, and in the end love, but in the middle service to an alpha that is also the omega. All these concepts reifying a beyond knowledge and beyond conceptual Truth of all things that is established ontologically and epistimologically as it is in Vedanta is subverted by pratitsamutpada and because of what pratitsamutpada means, also dependent origination is not established at all either. To someone who for endless cycles has identified with a God, or a vast source of all being that is omnipotent. They are going to see this missing space as nihilism. But really, it's not nihilism, it's just the opposite of both nihilism and eternalism. It's just the flow without location, identity and established function other than flowing. Buddhism is liberated from a God's will. This is very subtle and changes the way one practices and see's the cosmos. It can be very hard for a born and raised Theist to get this. I know. All the best. We do except that there is a self, just not a universal cosmic self that is beyond phenomena. The Buddha was quite well versed in the Veda and yet denied it's supremecy. He showed through his teachings where the Vedic interpretation is not all together wrong, but does not teach liberation from Samsara. Thus did not teach refuge in it. I do agree. But, I was trying that approach there. Yes, but it still posits some Truth beyond Maya that is the ultimate place of all Mayic functioning. This is why Buddhism doesn't talk about Maya. Because there is no illusion, there is only mis-cognition. Shankara say's, there is no illusion as all is Shiva, ultimately, so he also say's the experience of Maya is a mis-aprehension of the true identity of all things. But, Buddhism does not even say that things have an ultimate and established uniform identity.

Oh boy... the subtlety is lost. I'll speak on Dwai's post later. There is neither no self- or is there a Self. Which is what shunyata (emptiness) means in Buddhism. Of course relatively there is a self. Just not ultimately, unless one has the ultimate realization that there is no ultimate than one has the ultimate realization that all is interconnected but not uniform so has realized the true sacrifice that is the true bliss. Complete self offering to the endless cycling of samsaric beings while being free from clinging to all aspects, no-self, self, etc. Then one has an eternal self purpose, but it's free from an substantialization. One does not consider that all phenomena is one non-phenomenaly. Even that one is considered a phenomena and a clinging to view, thus samsaric in Buddhism. The difference is so subtle that it's beyond the semantics. It really is. Hindu cosmology still see's the beginning of a cosmic eon as being caused by an identifiable, a creative source that is beyond concept, but still existent. This re-absorbs the believers of this into a blissful oneness that is merely the potentiality for the next cosmic eon. Thus is not liberation from re-cycling.

'Josh Young' You don't understand the difference because you don't follow the question, does the cosmos inherently exist or not? Vedic theology still posits an existent that is beyond concept which shines from it's own side which everything is "one" with. Buddhism does not. Vedic thought still posits a real absolute truth behind, through and is everything that is beyond aspect and property but all aspects and properties, which subtly reinforces an identity deep within the formless states of consciousness. You may not be able to see the difference but both Buddha and Shankaracharya were able to see that they indeed were different interpretations of cosmic functioning and thus realization. So, if the Masters and exemplifiers of both systems found difference, then there is some subtle truth that you are not considering in your contemplation. If you don't believe in independency, then you cannot believe in Vedic interpretation of spirituality all the way to the end game.

LOL! Trip. I'm in St. Pete.

Indeed, thanks for the convo! LOL! That's cute. But of course! I'm in sunny Florida!

No, not the exact term but the meaning was used back then but in sanskrit it's "Pralaya" and "spanda" and "kalpa"... all talking about periods of activities and their endings of activity and the re-manifesting, on and on in a cyclical fashion. Big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch. This indeed was part of Vedic cosmology even before the coming of the Buddha. Except for Vedic people it's run by a vast and infinite consciousness that everything is one with, while in Buddhism it's just the cycling of causation without any person or supreme consciousness behind it all. A Buddha can manifest a realm or pure land that lasts past these coming's and going's. That's physically and even on subtle spiritual planes as well. But the consciousness which transcends physicality and grasps onto itself continues to re-manifest itself even after the body dies into different types of bodies, refined, dense of physical and even formless. I'm not sure all Taoists don't believe in re-birth. That' happens in the Jhana of infinite nothingness which is merely a state of focus that delves deep into what seems to be the unconscious, but consciousness is subtler than that as well. There are deeper dimensions of meditation as the texts say and as I have directly experienced. Yes, that's fine as a Taoist view. Ok... I as a Buddhist don't agree though. I am well, thanks so much. I'm sure you are as well!! Nice contemplation! But indeed, even the realizer of dependent origination is dependently originated thus the realization is also dependently originated and inherently empty. So, no grasping to the realizer, realization or the realized at all. Yes, in the end of course the concept of dependent origination is completely emptied. LOL!! Oh the circle of logic and words...

It's a complete expression of non-dual realization that transcends the conceptualizing of it. It's the recognition of both the fact that there are beings and that they do not inherently exist. As well as one's self. As your realization deepens, your understanding of ChNNR's teachings will become more realized as well. It's fine to have your opinion, just don't consider it true and real. It's far from a dualistic realization, because to the being his or her self, it's just the fruit of realization, and to the being his or her self, he or she does not experience disappearing at all. It's coming from a space of realization that's so vastly deeper and subtler than the normal capacity that has not delved deeply into meditation, that it seems out of this world. But really, it's just the realization of things as they are. What do I mean by this? I've tried to explain. I won't try here, because I don't want to confuse anyone. As people seem to be reading into my words meaning that I'm not intending. p.s. Thanks so much for the quotes Michaelz!

No, he does not. ChNNR knows better than Archer, you and me, as well as Gold is Heavy. So does Namdrol who's root guru is ChNNR, who does not wish to publish anything. I never said I published anything and don't do so. Namdrol also doesn't publish anything. But, all he does is translate texts from Tibetan. It is a sign, a sign of total integration. You should read Crystal and the Way of Light. It's also a way to connect better with seekers because of the merit it takes to see directly into the Sambhogakaya realm. ChNNR said this at a public talk I attended. I really don't care what Archer say's. Honestly. ChNNR is a Tibetan Dzogchen Master, both his uncle and his root Guru attained Jalus. He is a Bon scholar and historian. He's a more trustworthy source of information. Also Namdrol Malcolm is a Lappon who has done the 3 year 3 month 3 day retreat under the guidance of a retreat master. Has transmission from many, many of the most highly realized Rinpoche's and he is fluent in both spoken and textual Tibetan. He is sponsored by the Sakya lineage to translate texts. So again, you can believe what you wish. I find my sources to be much more creditable. EDIT: I lent my version of Crystal and the Way of Light out to someone in NYC. I live in Florida now, I suppose I'll have to buy a new one. But, I'd quote some pages if I could. I read that book a couple of times though. It's quite the condensed book. Michaelz I think might be able to quote some things from it?

Ah yes, the famous goldisheavy subjective defining. If you read some more actual Buddha teachings, you'll read where he say's, seeing a mountain as a mountain and a tree as a tree. Just letting things be. It means just letting the flow... flow. I'll elaborate. What I also meant is that things just as they are is that they are in fact radiance's of Rigpa, dancing inherently liberated. Ornamentations of Samantabhadra. That's things just as they are. You have no idea what the Jalus is, because you have no contact with anyone who teaches the Jalus directly, or has attained the Jalus. It's a deeply compassionate realization that grants regular seekers an easier way to contact a Buddha because it takes high merit to see directly into the Sambhogakaya realm, but when one's Nirmanakaya attains the Jalus, it's like bringing the light deeper into the valley. You don't get this because you don't understand how realized ChNNR is, and you don't read his teachings. The aim of Dzogchen is in fact Jalus. Dzogchen teachers teach this, the texts teach this, and that's the way it is. One of my teachers is a Tibetan text translator who is sponsored by the Sakya lineage to just sit around, do his practices and translate texts into English, he lives in Mass. You should ask him what the Tibetan texts say, the ones that aren't published in English. Jalus is the aim, because of what Jalus means. It means complete integration of one's karmic history, even on a DNA level with the state of Samantabhadra. This is exactly why one needs devotion to a real lineage master as well as humility which is the opposite of the type of pride that was projected that see's ChNNR the way you see him through your flawed vision. It will take humility, service and a complete laying down of your ego in order to rectify that ailment. I own this book, it's a pretty good scholarly work. But, it doesn't have any Dzogchen in it. Which is what we seemed to have been getting into talking about. Dzogchen would be the fruit of Vipassana. EDIT: My correction, it has a couple of blurps about Dzogchen without saying much.

A conversation me and my girlfriend had on this thread... God! I looove this post!! So funny... your awesome!

Ah yes... the old human dilemma... looking for the real Alpha. The Buddha transcended all this. He elaborated on dependent origination and beginningless cycling. This cosmos' beginning is based upon how the last cosmos ended, just like your thoughts. There's no Alpha... just beginning-less cyclings'. Neither came first... the evolution is beginning-less. This will help you get past substantialism, attachment to an essence, theism, monism, etc. You should read some Pali Suttas. The Buddha talks about remembering lives beyond the big-bang. As science says... this big bang is based upon how the last big suction happened. You are the microcosm of the macrocosm. Your current thought is based upon the infinite assortments of previous thoughts and their causes within infinite regress just as Michealz said. You indeed can see beyond the beginning of this cosmic eon, only through deep meditation or meditative contemplation.

That's true, it is all within/without simultaneously. http://www.amazon.com/Myriad-Worlds-Cosmol...4214&sr=1-7 It's detailed enough for an English translation. It's part of the Treasury of Knowledge. Or... "Myriad Worlds" is a translation of the first of ten books in Tibetan contained within the major treatise "The Infinite Ocean of Knowledge", which itself is a commentary on the root verses "The Encompassment of All Knowledge." It'll rock you!

Yes, I have a friend who was Yogi Bhajans personal servant for many years. As in errand boy. These claims are false. So many claims about so many Guru's, including Swami Muktananda... false. We'll some of them, it's true he had sex, but it was within the context of Kashmir Shaivism Kaula practice. It's totally fine. He wasn't some predator though.

Yes, I know it's a blissful experience. There are high blisses that are not liberation from Samsara. Not sure if Taoism and Buddhism have different goals yet. Buddhist cosmology seems to get more nitty gritty.

Eh... whatever. I'm talking about different approaches. Besides, I'm a Buddhist, I don't believe in a singular substance that we all are. I just believe that all substances are inherently empty, even consciousness, thus people have what seem's like oneness experiences, but really consciousness is just seeing through everything, not becoming one with everything. So, oneness is a mis-cognition.

Merkabah breathing isn't so taoist, but I guess you can kind of unify the two systems as words are only describing the seemingly shared realities.

hehe... cool. Doesn't it just though? The ever changing display of myriad colors, sizes and shapes...

Yes, I've always said this. I don't feel that other paths lead to the same level of liberation, just higher rebirths and better karma until one can actually understand the Buddha Dharma. One can have this same understanding that you are talking about without actually delving into anything other than Buddhadharma and this is talked about as there are so many texts in Buddhadharma. But, yes, there are so many useful things throughout Samsara that if one has the right outlook can gleam wisdom from that is transcendent or grounding. My view is not black and white and is not encompassed by the few words I have spoken over the years. See wisdom everywhere. Ralis, Ralis... So flippant.

It's good to be curious. One's curiosity should mirror onto itself through the tools and insights gleamed seemingly from without. If you look at Ralis' history he has a history of presumption which is why it became a kind of tough love scenario. Also, if you actually read the points and not get caught up in the ego's, you may in fact see something other than the dross in the gold.

Yes, yes... everyone here is so wise, they don't need living teachers and living examples to reflect off of. That's fabulous! Only when we are all completely liberated will we not have need for hierarchy. We will just play with them as games of expression according to karmic traces left as empty, luminous collections that act as humans. Samsara is beginningless and endless, as there are infinite beings, so hierarchy either corrupted or well placed with understanding of abstract needs will always be. I like to walk the line between disorganized abstractions and organized linearity and manifest as a harmony of the seeming duality.

Ok, you can follow your dis-organized abstractions. The Buddha in fact said that only through understanding experientially pratitsamudpada would one come to realize the Dharma of liberation. Other paths lead to higher rebirth, and not liberation from unconscious rebirth. But, as someone said, not everyone want's liberation from unconscious rebirth, so they follow their different paths. It's some new age standard that says all paths lead to the same end. This is wrong, it lacks study, it is grounded in mis-translations and a lack of historical study. Even Shankaracharya the major starter of Advaita Vedanta argued that the Buddhist teaching was wrong. Even the originators of the different traditions didn't believe that all paths lead to the same goal. Buddha argued that Mahakasapa who started the Jain system was wrong in no uncertain terms. That those who followed the Vedic Rishis were wrong. Not that these paths are not good, but that they only lead to higher rebirth and not true liberation from the cycle of samsara. Nagarjuna who is one of the fathers of current Mahayana also said in no uncertain terms that other paths merely lead to higher blissful rebirths and higher capacities, but Buddhadharma fulfills the end. Hierarchy has to do with capacity of the being. The more realized teach the less realized how to themselves be more realized. The guru teaches the disciple how to be his own guru. People have potentials within their lifetimes, so it's all relative. Hierarchy is necessary because not everyone is ready for the higher realizations and teachings. That does not mean inherent difference, or inherent one-up-manship either. It should not be a power struggle based on personal ego and wealth. But, there is spiritual hierarchy in subtler and even denser dimensions. This does not mean that someone on their own personal path to liberation does not need to experience or study from a lower yana, as everyone has their own process and integrative progress to make within their own limitations and expansions. But... I am not talking about that form of relativity here. Everyone gets what they get according to their capacity and personal progression. It's all relative. But, there are higher relatives and lower relatives within infinite relativity that is all inherently empty of any self.