Vajrahridaya

used to meditate 4 to 6 hours every day for years and chant 4 to 6 hours which is meditation on top of that. I didn't sleep much. But... these days... I don't do sitting meditation much, though I do mantra a whole lot... I need to do more though, meditation and mantra. hmmmm...

Exactly, happens in my sleep all the time. I'm mostly protected by deities when it's happening. Though I have met with some recently killed people a few times to help them or be entirely freaked out by them!! "I see dead people!!!" I know... all so strange. Non-fiction is more interesting than fiction.

Awesome! You were in Tibet during the Chinese invasion too! It's funny... I have a chinese step mom in this life who stole my college money. I was a Lama who had his hands chopped off, but I still showed compassion so they let me go... I can't remember exactly what happened after that though. I was a Bushman, Sahara desert Abhoriginal! We used to do fire cerimonies where we danced around it raising nu'kung, or however that sound is spelt with that snap in the middle. Their word for kundalini. I also was an Indian Yogi! I was a giant who helped build the first pyramid in Egypt. One of those really big persons belonging to that ancient race of giants of which bones have been found. I mean I was about 20 feet tall. I have many dreams with Egyptian deities and I never really studied that religion in this life, not that much at least. I don't have much memorized. I mean I've been initiated into that Alister Crowley Thelema path which is based on that stuff, but I never got into it that much. Though It's kind of like Kundalini yoga in a way and ancient Kabbalah. I was a triceratops a stork, many other things. A humanoid being who had a space ship and had clones of himself doing work in another galaxy or universe. Oh, I was a chinese man who killed a guy in a love triangle. I met him here in new york and the girl in the love triangle, she's on my facebook and myspace. I manifested the same love triangle in this life, but didn't kill the guy this time.... hmmm... there's more in there. eh! Yes, we do have past lives!! Yes!! Flashbacks! Like a total immersion in the re-experiencing, not like a memory in the conventional sense. Oh, I also saw a few of my past lives with my X girlfriend who we had some really intense karmas together, both good and bad. She also was Tibetan in her past life. She's a kundalini yogi shaivite in this life. We have our individual mind streams that have individual past lives since beginning-less time. Though yes, at a certain level one can see through any eye. All lives are like misty illusions, seemingly real and tangible, but only seemingly so.

Where do you get this idea that when one's obstacles are removed that one does not exist anymore? Through countless eons Padmasambhava traveled the many paths of virtue and built up an endless reservoir of the heaps of virtues to continue to manifest through after enlightenment, until all beings in all directions are liberated. Which never happens, so he never disappears. He may not have a 3 dimensional body anymore, just the Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya, but he can manifest a Nirmanakaya through his merits in any realm, and does so. Who knows, he could be that dude buying fruit at the store next to you? To clarify. There is no such thing as non-existing. There is never a time that you will not, exist from a relative point of view. Your D.O. will continue always, either experienced as nirvana or samsara. D.O. is non-stop, non-beginning.

Ah yes! I used to chant that lots too!! Such bliss!!

Ah! I used to chant this everyday! I loved this song... the bliss and experience I would fall/rise into through this form of pointing. But... alas, I was listening to it at a friends house the other night, going into a samadhi, and realizing, even Shiva knows he does not inherently exist and that he has not created anything, having been taught by a Buddha in the yuga before this. But, he understands the need for theism, thus manifests as a worldly deity, because many do not have the capacity to understand directly the wisdom of dependent origination. He wrote it 1200 years ago. Ah... yes I too would have this experience, but then I would cry, on and on and on, it is chakra clearing and orientation, all those trapped karmas in our cellular system as well. After there were times of walking around in a state of clear empty mist, like a mold of translucent quality. Thought or no thought, either or, nothing or everything would densify the experience. That's not a permanent state for me. But, the glimpses however long or short are very remindful and different insights and visions can come to the yogi.

Again, a hindu and theist paradigm, part of the delusion of samsara. Conceptless-ness as an absolute. Oh believe you me, these are far from words empty of experience!! It's ok... you do have endless time to get it. Buddhists do this... but we truly do this. Which is why we can use so many words, because they are all empty of inherent existence. We can point through so many ways, because we see a deeper, subtler goal. You still take up non-thinking as an absolute, you don't realize how part of the framework of samsara you and your friends are. Dependent Origination is the framework killer, totally and fully... not trapped in non-concepts, and not trapped in concepts. But... this is a discussion board, so here we go... more concepts. Concepts that some are getting. That's good enough. If these words were totally a waste, I'd be a sad Dharma pal.

I used to think like you guys. Have fun with it. I know it feels good.

Ooops, double post. Disapearing posts. How fun!! Magic show! Anyway, the offended make more violence than the offender.

Yes, but not as everyone's consciousness as a super oneness. Yes, one's consciousness get's more and more vast, spacious and deeper, but that's the realization of your own mind stream's inherent emptiness realizing the emptiness of all mind streams and their products. Consciousness is your now liberated experience of all manifestation but not as a source of all beings, or reified as an ultimate even. It's your own source of experiencing, and when liberated, experiencing of constant D.O. is liberated, the D.O. that never began and never ends.

The sole difference is the way it is handled in the subconscious mind. These are poetic terms, also english translations. So the clarity in the actual meaning does need to be ascertained by going back to the Pali Suttas. One cannot read Vajrayana and Mahayana, much less Dzogchen which on first glance looks like Advaita Vedanta, without first understanding the Pali Suttas. That's very serious if one wants to know the meaning. One will not attain realization just sitting in a cave meditating without proper guidance, unless one has already become a stream enterer in a previous life, but these guys still find guidance as an example and to clarify the meaning because stream entry is still not enlightenment. Otherwise, one reifies which is a Samsaric habit, even on a deep subconscious level. This habit of ours is beginning-less... very tenacious. The primordial ground is merely the ground of realization of the empty nature of all phenomena and non-phenomena. Nothing is really attained, Advaita says this too, because they deem all things to be subsumed by Brahman always. But in Buddhism, there is careful handling and utter clarity, not just... reify a conceptual-less ground of being that all is a part of. No, the Primordial ground is merely the fact that all levels of Samsara and Nirvana are always inherently without self essence. Also, even after enlightenment, you don't merge with the cosmos, your awareness just permeates everything because everything turns translucent, or transparent illumined by awareness endlessly, so one is able to ascertain at that point the secret meaning of everything within the context of dependent origination, because that's just how things work, both Nirvana and Samsara, it's not really a framework, not really a concept, but a concept killer, it empties all levels of reification, there is no ground of all being that is an ultimate truth, even dependent origination is not an ultimate truth, thus not even emptiness is an ultimate truth. That has been said since the very beginning. The Buddha said that Brahman is a mistaken interpretation of meditation experience in the Jhanas, which he practiced with Upanishadic yogis and found that they only led to future absorption and recycling after the end of this particular universe. Only Buddhism talks like this. Advaita Vedanta never talks about having a mind stream last beyond the re-absorption of a universe, at the end of the universe Theists and Monists merge with Brahman/Shiva, whatever. Any attempt to reconcile that is a later attempt due to Buddhist influence. Advaita Vedanta really is kind of a new invention, because before that, Samkhya was slightly dualistic. Even any of the good clear Upanishads are post Buddha, if not all of them, there is argument about this. Also Buddhism is the only path that talks about individually infinite mind streams that have NO SOURCE at all what-so-ever. Only Buddhism talks about beginning-less-ness. Hinduism has always talked about Brahman being a primal source, becoming Gods and all other beings and things, but these gods recede back into Brahman after many kalpas, because even the Gods, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, probably until the Buddha taught them a thing or two, taught limited paths, called by the Buddha, eternalism. Buddhas are the teachers of the Gods. One never reifies an ultimate in Buddhism, even in realization, otherwise the realization would not be the middle way. The differences have been laid out quite clearly by Xabir in the Advaita Buddhism thread. He recently quoted some very clear talks on the subject that do a better job than I can do in clarifying the middle path. No matter what anyone tries to say, Advaita's realization is reified eternalism, it's an extreme. Buddhism is neither nihilism, nor eternalism. There is eternity, but only because the flow of interdependency keeps going... Not even Buddhas are one with each other, their mind streams are individual, but they are one in the qualities of enlightenment, compassion, bliss, freedom from proliferation, freedom from concepts, and freedom from non-concepts, freedom from a ground of being, freedom from minds expressions and mind streams as well. Total freedom, not trapped in a secret "can't talk about it", ground of being that constantly recycles the universe. To Buddhism, Brahman is samsaric experience.

I understand that the older you get, the harder it is to have a paradigm change. It's ok though... you'll be a new born baby once again.

I've only elaborated on one view entirely. The viewless view... very simple. I just applied it to as close to infinite direction as I could in a few posts. No thicket of views here. You should read with more scrutiny and focus. Anyway... I didn't think that many minds would change. But a couple have gained interest and understanding from one point or another.

Wow... you really don't understand. There is no "real" no-thing that will liberate you in Buddhism. "That" is the subtle obscuration that re-absorbs you and re-expresses you through the Samsaric cycles. Like when you meditate and come out of it, that's the macrocosmic Samsaric blinking manifesting through the microcosm of you. Absorbing and re-expressing, absorbing and re-expressing. Buddha's cut through, not absorb in. You see, Samsara is inherent... Realization is not inherent, in the sense that you are thinking it is not. Or in your not thinking. There is no "no-thing" that cannot be explained, because concepts and non-concepts are the same in their non-abiding nature interdependency. The cosmos IS a framework and Buddhism is the match that explains it perfectly. Freedom from mental proliferation means something entirely different in Buddhism. Your still going on the non-conceptual is the container of the conceptual, framework. This whole, "neti-neti" but, "Tat Tvam Asi" idea. Your so immersed in this subtle framework. Like a being looking in the mirror and calling the reflection the reality and the person an illusion. Oh well... I was actually raised Advaita Vedanta Siddha Yogi, since before birth. I was not raised Catholic or Christian. The first movement I did when I moved my body were hatha yoga movements because my mom was doing hatha yoga with me in the womb. Yes, you are proud and attached. That's fine!! You have plenty of time to get it. Chitta, has always been a part of DO. Exactly... you want to be something. Some identity that's buried under all that changing ego, something real and tangible, something to hang on to that doesn't change. That's the agent of recycling, the builder of the house. You keep building the house of Samsara on the lot of Brahman, calling Brahman your true nature. The house of Samsara has a seed and it is your formless seemingly non-conceptual bliss states in meditation. The final veil. We are having this discussion and you are effected. So the seed will take hold in your mind stream some time in the future.

Boy are you proud of your heritage. An identity you hold very tightly to, I understand... Be well Dwai. I'm glad there are people here that did learn something and read objectively. I was obviously here for them. Who knows maybe a seed of scrutiny was planted into your mind stream? Again, dependent origination does not mean superimposition. Never has, never will. I know, because I used to think the same thing! But, after years of arguing with Buddhists coming from the same stance as you, and having direct experiences of the truth of my misunderstanding and hindu dogma. I came to realize a subtler truth. Also... this is not the only life I've done things in... but yes, this life has been chocked full of change and transformation. May your brick house fall and the flame of realization burn away your identity and pride. . . . (froth)

I'll do my best that I can muster at this moment. The subtle idea of a subtle Self that everything pivots upon universally, gives basis for absorption meditation practice. It's basically where one sets up a concept based upon a certain way of interpreting findings in nature, and contemplation, like mirrors and the objects reflected in them. So, these paths that set up an ultimate concept that is the true identity of all, Buddhists find fault with. The Advaitin finds the mirror to be ultimate, while the Buddhist see's the reflections and the reflector to be interdependent and both lacking inherent existence. So the meditative experience differs and the ensuing sahaja (spontaneous open eye) samadhi experience differs as well. Advaitins say, "neti-neti" or not this, not that.. but then they say... "Tat tvam asi" or, "That I Am" as in they take away all seeming concepts set upon the formless concept of a hidden entity behind the mind in the Turiya state of meditation, some systems talk about going deeper, but it's still finding some sort of ultimate identity behind the seeming moving phenomena. The Buddha said that this formless concept behind things is only a short repose (short as in maybe billions of years, but not eternally) and not the complete realization. He talks about these absorptions in the description of the Jhanas. But, he said none of these will satisfy the path of complete liberation. Even integrating these findings with material reality will not complete the path he said. Buddhists meditate in a way where they see the inherent non-abiding-ness, impermanent nature of things, so even the witness behind the mind is cut through with the view that is set up in the Buddhist texts offered by Buddhas. It leads to a different type of samadhi... not that the absorption samadhi doesn't happen for buddhists, it's just that the findings in those samadhi's are not considered as ultimate. We see everything as groundless. We don't interpret the experience of concept-less samadhi as an ultimate state of being. There is no ultimate nature that things superimpose onto, everything is equally empty all the way through from the perceiver to the perceived and the act of perceiving, both individually and in a cosmic sense. It's like the difference between seeing everything as water, or seeing everything as steam. I know, physically they are the same substance. But as a metaphor, one is less substantial and more transparent than the other way of viewing the ocean of cosmos.

Well actually, I was reminded by Wang Liping's teachings and how pure and good they are shortly after I may have said a few things about Taoism. I do have my opinions and I'm not the only one on here. I was really asked to come here just to debate on the Buddhist vs. Advaita thread. I was reminded of Wang Liping's lineage of Taoism and am in quite good agreement with him and quite amazed by him in fact. I just hadn't thought of him for some 15 years or so until I came here. Sure, I feel that. But, why be threatened? Don't read it. But yes, I said the things I said on the Advaita vs. Buddhist board, so... what's the big deal? Everyone has opinions. Just ignore mine then. I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. Ok... But, debating has nothing to do with ego. Taoists debate with each other about which path is more pure. It's about finding clarity. I never made it a you suck contest. Many times I have said that all paths that are good, are good, but not all paths are complete. You are reacting way too emotionally. I never said anything about not feeling good. Just that the Buddhist texts talk about layers in feeling good and the causes. My argument was that the cause of Advaitin feeling good is based on a formless all pervasive absolute entity. Buddhists feel good based upon freedom from proliferation of any sort. So.. I do believe in feeling good! The Supreme good feeling is what I'm after. Anyway... Silicon.. your still just arguing circles attacking the person and not the writings.

I've read this many years ago, meditated on much of it too. Nyaya or the logic and Vaisheshika about atomic structures being pushed by a supreme will. I am quite familiar with Kapila, the Yoga of Patanjali, the discussion of Parusha and Prakriti, matter and spirit, etc. The 24 tattvas of which Kaula Shaivism add's 12 more to go deeper. I am actually more well read and meditated than you think. Regardless of how threatened you are by my writings from your subjective outlook to turn to attack the writer during your crunch times instead of merely subverting what was written. You are just making excuses. I guess because you think that there's no Maitreya Buddha and that there are no beings in other dimensions is the reason why you don't believe that the Puranas and Janaka tails have any validity. Because your karmic experience has not opened to such dimensions? You consider such things, hallucinations? Hypnosis experiences? Yeah?

You really aren't going on much my dear. I offered you a greater source for which you can extrapolate your disapproval of me from. Plenty of beings who were trained in Advaita then found Buddhism, turned to subvert the tenets of Advaita. So, sooo many. Yes, you are threatened. I didn't personally attack Dwai, he did me a bit, so I touched back a bit, but mostly I'm explaining how different Advaita is from Buddhism. That's the whole point which you already understand, so... we can discuss which one is better if you like. My point to Dwai is that Advaita's realization is different from Buddhas. If you already concede to that point. Then we can have a different debate. The same amount of time that you took to insult me and my experience and knowledge, which you haven't proven wrong yet, you could have just attempted to subvert my findings. That would be more fruitful, or do you get off being a push around? Besides, I'm not attacking the Hindu persons, I'm attacking the doctrines.

Wouldn't matter if he did get mad. Brahmin's got mad at the Buddha for subverting their views. Siliconvalley... Take a break from what? I'm doing my dharma and learning from myself as I write. I'm into writing! Discussion inspires words. I don't get the same inspiration staring at a blank page. Plenty here enjoy my writings and learn from them, just as I am learning of myself by writing and objectifying my personality to see it in a concrete way. I am also refining the skills of expression. This is fun for me!! I hope your finding out about yourself in your personal attacks.

Anyone is welcome to read my posts from 2003 where I argued against Buddhists in the same way that Dwai does here. Like I said, I was gung-ho with plenty of experience from hours and hours of meditation to back it up. I spent so much time subverting Buddhist Elitism for a number of years. It bore fruit... I realized I was wrong and the interpretation of my meditative experience was missing the view. Link to Vajrahridayas posts from 2003 arguing for the Advaita Vedanta cause. Mir. Sillicon Valley, instead of attacking the person, like your doing, which is pointless. Why not actually refute my statements? That would be more productive, because by attacking me, your revealing your insecurities. Yes, I'm inspired to write... I also have no work to do other than this right now. This space in time will end. I'm sorry your so threatened? To much so to actually refute my statements, instead you attack me personally. Not very impressive. You even cut and paste from my myspace page and say something in an attempt to refute the person? Wow... Yes, you are just looking in the mirror and calling it Vajrayhridaya. That is very clear!

I guess your talking in the mirror?

Buddhists don't agree. There is no becoming anything for a Buddhist. There is no conceptless ground of experience that subsumes all equally. There is no transcendent being that cannot be described. Yes, in Buddhahood realization is free from concepts, but in a different way that you are experiencing it is. In Buddhism, realization is dependent upon the viewless view that there is no inherent existence that stands alone free from concepts. That experience is based on the fact that there are and always will be concepts, on a relative level, so your absolute is also relative. Brahman has nothing to do with the Buddhas expression of Shunyata. Buddhas realization is not a stripping away, but a cutting through. There is no essential nature that exists that all is one with according to the Buddha. That, like I said, is a Hindu dogma, like an imperialist trying to subsume all other religions saying it's all one. Feels good, but it's just not true. It's a feel good based on an ignorant view that leads to the recycling of mind streams that experience this as absolute, thus the cycling of samsaric experience continues, from one universal expression to the next.

Yes, but what that means to a Buddha is different from a Siddha of Advaita. To an advaitin, there is an idea of everything "being" of a singular "being" that all inherently "is". To a Buddha, it is just "being" in the flow of experiencing samsara as nirvana without identity. There is still work to be done for the rest of eternity for a Buddha, and that is to express the framework that explains the framework of samsara as it truly is, so that others can become Buddhas. To also pacify false doctrines, just as the Buddha Shakyamuni did and yes many Brahmins didn't like him. Are you even trying to understand the meaning of our words? Doesn't seem so. There is no witness, there is no where, there is no superimposition or that to be superimposed on. Brahman is not the same as emptiness. Gaudapada did not understand Nagarjuna or the Buddha, neither did Shankaracharya. There is only the flow that has no absolute value in and of itself. Not even consciousness, objectless or filled with Hindu or Buddhist concepts. It's just that Buddhist concepts clearly lay out the path out of Samsaric experience, while Advaitin concepts, lead merely to the edge of samsara. Nagarjuna said this. Right, but you guys think of it as a universal consciousness that subsumes all. Buddhists see no witness and no subject/object, etc. From a standpoint of there never really having been any of it. But not that we are all one in a concept-less ocean of consciousness. Nope, all Buddhas have separate and unique realization of the empty nature of all. They are unified in intention of compassion towards beings who do not understand the Sanatana Dharma. A word first coined in the Buddhist Dharmapada, later taken by various Hindus. For Advaitins, you think of it as a oneness without a second. To Buddhists, neither oneness or many-ness. Again, there is no underlying existent in Buddhism.

It's all relative, even your idea of a featureless cosmic consciousness that everything superimposes over. The view is different, so is the result. There is no underlying reality in Buddhism. How many times do we have to prove that to you for you to get that. THERE IS NO UNDERLYING EXISTENT IN BUDDHISM!! LOL!! Again, that's a Hindu idea, not a Buddhist idea, and never was Buddhas intention if you read the Suttas carefully. Oh well... someone is reading and understanding. I know your whole identity is too immersed in being Hindu to think otherwise for this lifetime? I remember being all sorts of things in past lives, so I know that such a hard identity is really silly. I had to be objective, because I used to believe as you do, exactly in fact... and had meditative experiences that fortified this belief, but realized... I was wrong. Just as you are wrong now. Brahman is called the Self of all in endless Vedantin scriptures. No such things in Buddhism, again... you must not be reading our posts at all. Because that has not sunk in. According to Buddhism, that is not enlightenment, but a subtle obscuration leading to re-absorption into a long lived formless realm at the end of the particular universe that the person existed in. Meanwhile a Buddha ascends to a Buddha realm and continues to work on Samsarins in other universes, while that person eventually looses consciousness of focus on a featureless consciousness and falls into suffering Samsarin experience again and that bliss of featureless consciousness is forgotten again, over and over again throughout endless cycles. It's not final emancipation according to the Buddha, never was, never will be. Buddhism teaches something entirely different and Buddha himself thought it was the best and most clear, an incredible teaching like none on earth at that time. Though he also said to weigh it with experience. So you don't have to agree with me, but it is different. There is no reason, it's just an endless flow. Dependent Origination is not really a concept. If you think so, you don't understand dependent origination. Because things and the seer of things, including your consciousness are interdependent, they do not truly exist in and of themselves and don't have inherent reality. This is a subtle intuitive comprehension that transcends your view and Advaita view. You can think that it doesn't, but the Buddha said it did, Nagarjuna said it did and Padmasambhava said it did. So... whatever you think about it. Buddhism teaches something different than Advaita, and it has nothing to do with structures because to Buddhism, enlightenment IS NOT an underlying existing principle without structure, to the Buddha, that's a subtle structure. In Buddhism, the no-thought, no-buddha, is just a way of explaining dependent origination, not an underlying de-qualifier of phenomena. That's what substratum means! Same thing... there is no superimposition over an absolute ground of existence according to Buddhism. You are still not understanding how dependent origination absolutely eradicates any footing and any universal source of existence. These are flawed interpretations of seemingly concept-less meditation. According to the Buddha... These are the highest types of formless meditation... Dimension of infinite space. Dimension of infinite consciousness. Dimension of nothingness. Dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. If any of these is deemed as not dependently originated, no matter how free from concepts they may seem, that is a subtle concept. Your Brahman is considered a subtle concept in Buddhism, a deep seed that is the actual cause of samsaric experience within a mind stream. Vedanta's philosophy and ending experience is considered samsaric according to Buddhism and the Buddha... always has been as such. All the above mentioned states in Buddhist cosmology lead to long lived formless realms that eventually lead to ignorant re-birth... There is no ground of existence. Your fearture-less consciousness that everything is a part of is a concept according to Buddhism. You say your free from frameworks, but your thinking in a very Hindu framework about what concept-less means. It doesn't mean the same thing in Buddhism. Beyond concepts is a different intuitive experience in Buddhism. That's why you have to intuit dependent origination, it has to be a deep experience... it's not really just a concept, it's a concept pointing to the extinguishing of your recycling seed, that you call Brahman. There is no beginning, there is no first cause. There is no from where... it's an endless, beginning-less flow, that samsarins experience as samsara and buddhas experience as nirvana. Period... no source, no absolute ground of existence. Just a constant process without substance. There is no first mind stream, period! That's why Buddhas talk about remembering past lives that pre-exist this universe and pre-exist the pre-existent universe, and so on. Our mind streams are without beginning.