Vajrahridaya

Why not hang out in forums and have discussions?

I'm not a fan of Krishnamurti as his view is not clear and there are no real methods for transformation. He doesn't understand co-dependent arising. He just says some enlightening things that make one's emotions float a bit. No actual practical application methods. People that read him I find have all these concepts about enlightenment that are like a house of cards. Osho seemed like a nice guy with a good intellect. But again, no real method and he did not have a complete view either. People who follow these guys New Age jumbo soup I find don't have real clear attainment, just mushy words. Look at Osho, getting kicked out of America for embezzlement. His method... just shake yourself around and go into trance states, do what you want, follow your karmas... Osho had a wonderful watch and car collection though! He also laid some hotties!! Nothing inherently wrong with that... They are all at their core based on the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold noble path. They have anatta and co-dependent arising as a foundation, vipassana and jhana or samatha as well. People develop over many lives and need different interpretations at times, karmas are complicated and there is no supreme will behind the cosmos so there is going to be some views that are more clear than others, some methods that work better and some teachers that are indeed more enlightened than others. This is the relative universe we live in and this is what dependent origination means on a certain level as well. Take care... kick butt well?

Wonderful, flying or not flying, they are both equal in their capacity as real seeming hallucinations. But really though, the one who can honestly levitate is closer to realizing the hallucinations un-reality.

goldisheavy... none of this really leads anyone to clarity. More New Age mumbo jumbo gumbo soup anyone? Even after one has realized emptiness, one still develops capacities. Sure, bodhisattvas take birth in different traditions in order to help people unto more and more clarity according to their capacity. But, what's the use of talking about that? Why not just talk about what really is the clear path to liberation and what is actually the clear way of viewing the cosmos? What path has some real method and view, not just total clarity philosophically, but real methods of application for inner transformation and development of capacities for developing the siddhis for the sake of transmitting and revealing? Which path has real clarity in intention for bringing about the development of true compassion? Which path is really complete and can be fully utilized to develop more capacity for teaching even after one has realized Buddhahood? Fixation on a non-conceptual ground of being is still a fixation that leads to ignorant re-birth, even after a thousands kalpas of blissful chillin' out with your favorite deity. What path activates beings even in states of deep meditative Nirvana to take up the vow to liberate endless sentient beings and develop more capacity in order to do so? goldisheavy... I used to think like what your trying to show through your metaphors. If you go on E-Sangha and check out my first posts from 2003 and on... I had lots of wonderful metaphors that revealed the same truth that your trying to display with exactly the same intent. I do appreciate your creativity. Sure, but one will still teach it as the ultimate teaching. Because even after transcending it, one still works and expresses through it even as a Buddha, as pratityasamutpada is how the cosmos works.

Yeah... a lot of seems, huh?

In the Vajrayana tradition one has to have mastery in sutra, visualization and samatha meditation.

Dwai, Certainly you must think that the Advaita Vedantin interpretation of Vedic thought is better than the Hare Krishnas who interpret you guys as Mayavids and list Krishna as the only true God that you are never able to attain oneness with and interpret the Bhagavad Gita in an entirely different way than you would. One interpretation is obviously more logically clear than the other. Both are good paths that lead to higher rebirth, but one I think leads more closely to liberation from Samsara than the other one. Though both are good, one Vedanta is clearly better and more clear than the other Vedanta.

it seems I'm undone unraveled mystery I like a ball of yarn

the wind blows your hair the cause of which blooms endless flow seams never ends

Levitation is possible when the lower densities of a being through meditation are suppressed for a period of time into elemental essences. (Edit:) To clarify, in certain Tantric practices the essences of the elements are visualized as colors and one has to comprehend certain realities of interdependent causations of qualities.

But Dwai... don't you understand? It's true! The Buddhism of Buddhas is going to be better than the Buddhism of non-Buddhas. Of course there is going to be better versions of Buddhism than other forms "originating dependent" upon such multifarious complexities of conditions. Some more proof of your misunderstanding of dependent origination and how deep and complex the cosmos is. Because the cosmos is not based upon some non-conceptual ground or will of all, but it's based upon how complex movement happens. pratityasamutpada transcends the ideation of atman/theism/monism.

Realization is as constant as the detached and accepting awareness of inconsistency.

Sure they do, because impermanence means the same thing as re-freshment. Because of impermanence, there is constant flow and utter freedom. If one experientially understands the Heart Sutra, then yes... that's just fine. It's still based on thoroughly understanding Buddhism and not on sitting in some conceptualess state of being.

Again, you don't understand that in Buddhism there is no absolute zero. Than stop Ad-hom'ing when you can't prove that you know what your talking about.

Well, at least my version of Buddhism is in tune with what Buddhism teaches while yours is not.

Oh, but it's not mine. It has nothing to do with intolerance of existence of other incomplete view's on cosmos and liberation, it just doesn't except them as whole and valid. It's right there from the Pali Suttas. The Buddha argued against incomplete views through logic and reason as well as a display of personal peace through physical presence which is not so available through this medium. The Buddha was indeed an elitist. So, I'm not making up anything new here. I am actually way more open than you think. If you can show me where I'm wrong about something I will concede as I did with Taoism. Though I do feel that because Compassion isn't given as much emphasis, that the liberation is not going to be complete as in Buddhism, compassion and liberation go hand in hand and in fact liberation is based upon how compassionate one is. That doesn't mean one just say's... "oh... your view is wrong, but you can have it"... no... the Buddha clearly from the very beginning tried to dispel wrong views, but was detached about the result and didn't try to hang people who didn't believe him or understand him. If the view is wrong, no true liberation.

Didn't realize that this thread descended into a barrage of nonsense and ad-hom's. Michaelz, You are so funny with your picture add on's. It's true that Buddhism is incompatible with any other religious doctrine for the most part, except what I've more recently learned of Taoism, even though it still seems incomplete. Buddhist cosmology is an entirely different revelation of how the cosmos works and what it is to be liberated. In Buddhism liberation is not based on realizing an eternal essential base or atman to everything that transcends thought and frameworks, that is somehow outside of the all. Otherwise the Buddha would have taught the doctrine of Atman, but he subverted it with Pratityasamutpada (co-dependent arising, meaning no supreme cause or source) and Anatman (meaning no essential basis to things). He also subverted the idea of taking refuge in a God or source of the Cosmos, by saying that one should take refuge in the teacher of the Dharma, the Dharma itself and the students of the Dharma. What Buddhadharma is, is very specific. Consciousness is always the most subtle and understanding it leads to the condition for liberation. To identify everything to a single consciousness though according to the Buddha is the anchor in Samsaric cycling and not a path to liberation. Therefore Buddhism at it's basis cannot accept other view points of other spiritual traditions as true and worthy of the same respect, because according to Buddhism, they don't lead to liberation from Samsara. As the cosmos follows a certain framework, one must understand that framework in order to be liberated in it. As there is only the framework and nothing outside of it, it is only by truly understanding it that one can be free in and through it. This is why the Buddha considered Nirvikalpa Samadhi to be just another aspect of the framework and not the transcendent state and liberates as it lacks insight into dependent co-arising.

Dwai, There is no source or origination to pratityasamutpada (dependent co-arising). This is NOT a Buddhist tenet at all. It is a revelation of beginninglessness. There is no starting point and no one mind stream that all beings are according to Buddhas Buddhism. Your making up your own version in your head in order to remain within the framework of your upbringing, that's all. You are not transcending your framework one bit in fact. You are fortifying it constantly with mis-consideration of the words spoken by us about what dependent origination means in Buddhism.

There is no stand alone truth in Buddhism and your definition of Emptiness is romantized projection based upon an Advaitin framework that pretty much all Buddhists don't agree with. Because pretty much every Buddhist, except some that wrongly understand what emptiness means in Buddhism, you can pretty much just throw away your view of Buddhism. Just stick with Advaita, fine, but it does not lead to the same place as Buddhism. There is no stand alone truth in Buddhism is Buddhism's ultimate truth, as explained by Nagarjuna. This is different from the Advaitin ultimate truth that stands alone and is self existent without reference. That's why there is less scrutiny in Vedantin texts. Read Abhidharma. You are still taking up emptiness as a view... amazing, it's like you don't read. You need to read more objectively and see Buddhism from it's own side instead of subsuming it with your Brahman view. It's a dogma. Which loosely translates as a mental wall to objective reading and understanding. I've experienced. They are Jhana states, meditative states, not what Buddhism equates with emptiness though. I experienced what you would call Nirvikalpa samadhi at the age of 16 (edit: ooops, around 14). I experience Turiya often in waking sleep states. Dependent origination has nothing to do with superimposition over an ultimate faceless consciousness. Double Edit: Supposedly the human being can only have a truly conscious experience of Formless states after puberty because the subtle body goes through a kind of maturation after puberty and is able to consciously hold the experience. I don't quite remember, but I might have read this in the Jnaneshwari. It makes sense, but there might be some very few people who transcend this through being very high level yogi-brashtas or Tulkus. It is because it's experiencable, even if subsuming two into one. Still, experiencable. There is nothing outside of the All, as has been quoted from the Buddha for you so many times. Consciousness is also dependently originated, as the Buddha said, as is shown to be in even the Cittamatra or Yogacara shcools of Buddhism, that don't take faceless consciousness as a self and apply dependent origination even there. Study more Buddhism before you claim to know what the Buddha taught. Be well Dwai... I mean you the best!

One should look at all feeliings objectively, because every arising is dependently originated, therey even if it feels good to be pulled towards smething, doesn't mean it's the best direction as it could just have to do with past lives, thus the feeling of, "home". Though... being pulled towards Toaism is good.

dependent co-arising... basically the linking process of the 12 links and consciousness of it, even though consciousness is also part of the 12 links. Abhidharma talks a lot about how these things are possible.

It's not on E-Sangha, it's actually most all of Buddhism that feels this way, even Theravada and Mahayana. Also the people on E-Sangha, many of them are highly educated and practiced with some doing some very intense retreats including Namdrol who did the long 3 year, 3 month, 3 day retreat in a traditional manor. The Dalai Lama himself doesn't feel that all paths lead to the same place, though he believes in brotherly love and all getting alongism. He doesn't feel that all spiritual traditions lead to the same conclusions. Most that think that way think that ultimate truth is defined by a lack of concepts. Though Buddhism defines realization as liberated from all types of bondage, conceptual or non-conceptual as well. The final Truth of Buddhism is not equal to a high state of meditation either, which most paths feel that this is so and they just integrate this high state of meditation with their normal life and wala, enlightenment. Buddhism practices a certain kind of insight that is very specific and generally not found anywhere else, except maybe in Taoism at this point in it's evolution... I don't know for sure?? There is a fundamental difference in how liberation and truth is interpreted in Buddhism from other paths which leads to a different experience. It's not just a reductionist formula where one just de-constructs into the common denominator. That's not how Truth is found in Buddhism. But yes, keep an open mind, but practice and experience for oneself the Truth's of Buddhist teaching. Experience is the same, but interpretation is all the difference between liberation and the edge of samsara. I'm almost in agreement with Sakya Trizin as I didn't know that the Tao was basically a formula for experiencing co-dependent origination to the degree that I just found out from Uncle. It seems that the Tao is not an abiding inherent nature, but just the nature of the non-abiding flow of things and consciousness. That would be quite in line with what Pratītyasamutpāda (co-dependent-arising) means and the experience it's comprehension leads to. I just don't know if nearly as much information is given to what one does with the state of enlightenment to help countless beings and stay in the state of non-abiding realization as is in the Mahayana/Vajrayana. Because in Buddhism, we stay enlightened throughout endless samsara by offering our merits to endless samsarins, due to the fact that there is no eternal self standing consciousness that persists throughout eternities unfoldment. Thereby we keep an action body without attachment to self identity but with consciousness of this for the rest of endless time originating dependent upon understanding directly Pratityasamutpada and applying consciousness to merit offering. This is a real subtle point I think that doesn't exist in any other tradition on earth, as far as I know. Though... yes, Lau Tzu could have been one of those really ancient pre-Buddha Buddha's that the Buddha talked about. I am excited about what I've learned here about Taoism!! Glad I came!

Consciousness is also dependently originated and not considered a container like a jar for everything. It's not considered the supreme source of all beings. According to the Buddha, that is a mis-understanding of Dhyan experience. It seems true in that experience, coming out and having products superimpose over that deep state of infinite consciousness. But it's really just the conscious experience of consciousness expanding past the dimension of density because of the inherently non-existing nature of things and consciousness as well. Buddhism is not a metaphysics per say, in the way that Advaita describes how the cosmos works. In Buddhism, there is only the framework, there is no self existing dimension that is beyond thought that is also not part of the framework of dependent origination. Dependent origination is self transcendent only in the sense that, that which makes up the all are all inherently empty, not-self-abiding as in there is no, "that" which is beyond concepts that is the ultimate reality. You are separating emptiness from phenomena, which cannot be done, there is no stand alone emptiness saying, "This is emptiness apart from phenomena". It's not a self existent, empty of phenomena according to Buddhist description. That is a mis-cognition of Nagarjuna. As he said, "Those that take up emptiness as a view are pronounced incurable". Which is exactly what your doing. Emptiness is not at all equal to the Vedantin Brahman. Brahman is equal to the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception, that is all. Not considered an ultimate in Buddhism. As in Buddhism, there is no stand alone ultimate. Take care.

Dwai, I must apologize for coming off in a way that allowed for this interpretation of me. It is way off base though and quite subjective. Me and my girlfriend just got back from having a wonderful meal at the Indian market and I talked with her about how good the Indian food was at the Ashram I lived in during the 90's. We talked about various things, including how Buddhism is by all classifications as Hindu, but counter Vedic as the south Indian Siddhars of Tamil Nadu were. So... I did word my argument wrong when I classified all Hindu's into a single bunch, which I do know better. It's just been a long time since I've debated and thought about such things. Anyhow, I have a friend around the corner who is also Brahmin and lives and dies by the universalist code of the Hindu ideal. Though Buddha's Buddhism leads to a different place than Vedanta, they can get a long. My main argument was with the idea that Buddhism leads to the same realization as Vedanta, not against the whole of Hindu culture... LOL! It must have been that bad pizza I ate that day. I in fact love the Hindu culture and think that the smartest people on the planet and the deepest spirituality comes out of India. Look at the mathematical formula of "pi" for instance which was realized long before in India than it was in the West. Anyway... I apologize for coming off as described by you above. Not at all who I am as a person. Take care.

There is an attachment to a, "thinking stops". Calling it a source also is a reification which means... it exists, or there is existence. This does not have to be a thought thing, but a subtle experience and a clinging to that experience as, "this is it". The Buddhist view is that Nirvana does not exist, it is a realization of the non-abiding nature of the all, including "free from thought" formless experiencing.