Vajrahridaya

Yeah... truly mind boggling! Even infinite universes, not only this universe with it's endless array of galaxies... The mind pretzel is a yoga pose... breath into it as the knot is released... aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!! edit: Yeah, Xabir and his thusness quotes, are like light sabers on justice boats... LOL!!

Of course, it's D.O. interacting with D.O. That's why i said, buddhahood is ignorance too, as an identity, there is no buddhahood ultimately.

Luminosity is not ignorant or non-ignorance, it's just part of D.O. thus, can be experienced as nirvana or samsara.

Man, I love your presentations!! I'm learning from you... That quote came from another board.

Even nothingness is empty of inherent existence. Emptiness as defined in Buddhism is not nothingness, but pointing directly to dependent origination. The concept of nothingness is based upon the concept of something-ness, thus co-origination and both thus have no inherent and are empty of self existing identity.

That's the Hindu dogma I was talking about, originating dependent upon the un-recognition of dependent origination and what dependent origination actually means. Thus, the great difference and total rift between Advaita/Vedanta and Buddhism. The very definition of enlightenment is entirely different. No, we are not the same but we are ignorant in the same way. So, to not recognize the framework that all is ignorant by, which is Dependent origination, is to not recognize how the cosmos works, period. The Hindu's claim of all paths are equal, is an ignorance and a dogma. Of course. You have no idea what I know. I know lots and lots of Indians from India. I know that out of the 1 Billion people of India, there are so many, many creeds as it's the most diverse country in dialect and religious branches in the entire world, so many cults of worship and practice, etc. I could say the same about you. Let us continue with your education... No, the chain of D.O. is eternal and not because it's a self. In Samsara it was based upon non-recognition of movements non-inherent nature, but in Nirvana it is based upon the recognition of movements non-inherent nature. It's a chain of sequences of a complex and layered pattern. There is only dependent origination, which does not even inherently exist, there is no abiding source. There is no eternal substratum. Dwai, please read the post above this. Thank you.

It's basically very good to get to know how your energy works. But, yes, I think enlightenment in Taoism is defined somewhat differently then in Buddhism. So, developing your energy body should co-relate with what you want as your goal. If the goal is different, then how you cultivate your energy will be different. How you manifest your subtle body after the physical dies away, or however... if you attain the rainbow or something... but, yea. The subtle body is not static and how it manifests is dependent upon what your view is. So, if the view is different, so will the outcome. Peace! edit: Now that I've read a lot more of the posts in this thread. I like many of the answers! _/\_

When Buddhists speak of ultimate realization, they speak of recognition of the non-abiding nature of all, from formless to form. They don't speak of the stripped away consciousness as a container that self exists. When Buddhists speak of self liberated, they mean the recognition of the non-arising nature of awareness and things, always. When they speak of an all pervasiveness, they speak of the fact that since beginning-less time, nothing has ever come into being as a reality. Everything, everywhere is merely a seemingness, an illusive flow, no foothold anywhere, no tangible reality other than a mistaken assumption. Even the consciousness of this is dependent upon the fact of the intangibility and non-abiding nature of things. Consciousness is not self sustaining, but dependent upon and wrapped up in the mass of dependent origination of the personal mind stream that is simultaneously interdependent with all other infinite mind-streams. There is no ultimate object really. Even though in meditation one may take up the contemplation of the empty nature of things as the "ultimate" nature of things, but not as a self abiding ultimate. It is in a slightly different view that does not lead to an altered state of consciousness or trance state, but rather a subtle understanding and cutting through. The experience in meditation is even different between the two systems. Also, Advaitin's are more absorbent, while Buddhists are more cut through bent, thus more stress on the slightly open eyed Samatha which effects the chakras differently. The fact that Advaitins absorb more and strip away to try to find a subtle identity behind things that is stable, is the cause of Buddhas revelation of non-self to help subvert this subtle attachment within the Vedantin belief system and thus also the experiential outcome. The realization is different.

Wow, Wang Liping is still teaching? I read "Opening the Dragons Gate" long ago and loved it!! That's awesome!!

My mind stream is my beginningless stream of dependent origination, awareness is included. It inter-relates with infinite other mind streams, mingling and separating...

awareness... illumination...

Like I said, your not well read in the Dharma, so I would not go on your opinion as to what the Buddha would do. Reading the Dharma is more important than doing the dishes for sentient beings. Anybody does the dishes, but only a seeker of the Truth will read the Dharma. Only doing the dishes is a practice for someone who reads the Dharma, it's not a practice for others... it's an annoyance for most. You don't, DO Zen? LOL! That's reading into things... It's exactly this attachment Koan like abstractions that bother me, a whole lot of clever speaking. Yes, having that state of pure awareness where concepts collapse is good, but that's not the whole of the dharma or the whole of realization. Zen is good, don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful path, but too influenced by Taoism in my opinion. Also, Tibetan Buddhism is not that influenced by Bon. It's more the other way around, the same practices and rituals existed in India in the same way with the same view and outcome. Just some of the names of the deities have changed and there's better painters now for the mandalas. Sure some of the celebrations are distinctly Tibetan mixed with buddhist sensibilities, but that's it. Vajrayana has always been a very colorful path. No, it too is empty, as in empty of self existence. Emptiness does not mean, "non-existence", or, "not there", it means no inherent reality. Brahman is always labeled inherent reality. See, this is a problem with reading Vedanta into Buddhism, you miss what emptiness actually means, in Buddhism. It does not mean empty like a jar is empty. Your considering consciousness as the jar and when it's empty, it's objectless. Your way of reading Buddhism is flawed. Both the jar, consciousness and the things in the jar, are interdependent in Buddhism and empty of inherent existence. Neither have ultimacy. There is no ultimate in Buddhism, in that sense, no ground of being.

Thats what these boards are good for so that we can be objects to ourselves and see where we are attached and grasping. Also to see how refined our understanding of the Dharma is. To learn more about the Dharma as well. Whatever your Dharma may be.

What he's saying is that subtle consciousness, is the Self ground of it's arisings, and if not emptied of identity entirely, if it's not seen as dependently originated and not-self, then it becomes the cause for future re-birth, even if after a thousand eons of enjoying that bliss, it's not final liberation.

I forgot your main language isn't English. Reading into things means seeing subjectively, or seeing what's not there out of the words seen or read. It basically means not understanding what was read. The Buddhas teachings were orally kept by very disciplined and focused monks, many of them were already Buddhas before the Buddha passed away. Yes, the poor Vedic Rishis who spent all there time meditating and not understanding the view got caught up in a subtle formless infinite featureless cosmic consciousness. That was the Buddhas point in undergoing all the different forms of meditation and seeing that they were dependently originated and not absolute. Thus he laid out the 31 planes framework of where the different states of meditation lead if one doesn't understand "The View" which is expressed through concepts, which aline the focus of the mind. Reading the concepts and understanding the concepts, IS a practice! The reason why I don't do Zen is because I think it's too influenced by Taoism. It's not pure in my opinion while Tibetan Buddhism is generally speaking faithfully pure as to how it was practiced in North India for a thousand years before it went to Tibet. Maybe you should read more?

The first part is what defines the second part. Making the outcome different.

Buddhism see's this as a subtle formless concept and obscuration. Not a final Truth. The Buddha taught a different message from Advaita. Wrong or not, it's different. Advaita and Buddhism disagree on what enlightenment is.

Boy, you like to read into things, don't cha? The Buddha's whole doctrine is an interpretation on what is Cosmos and enlightenment. No need for anything else. Many of his interpreters anyway were indeed Buddhas in their own right as well. The Buddha said be a lamp onto yourself, but he said that be the lamp through this framework I have laid out. Unlike Jesus, and unlike the ancient Taoist masters who didn't say much or didn't leave much writing at all, he actually set out to create a framework that he said was the ancient way that was different from all other ways. I don't think you understand Buddhism. So... there you have it. Oh! Almost forgot! The Buddha used ton's and ton's of concepts, many of them borrowed from the Vedas, but re-oriented into a new framework that liberated, instead of bound. Buddhism is all about the framework, the framework that teaches how the frame is put together. If you don't understand the framework, you'll never properly dismantle the frame.

It has nothing to do with intolerance and hate, I don't see much hate other than some people who like to call other's idiots and what not. This is a debate about clarifying the meaning. Thats part of what these boards are for, to gain clarity in understanding and view to apply to meditation and integrate with waking life. To re-arrange the synaptic firings in the brain, to re-evaluate one's own subconscious workings. There is no conditional-less reality according to Buddhist interpretation of cosmos. What I was saying about Shankara's statement is that he's identifying the I with some conditional-less eternal entity in his final sentence. There is no enlightenment without properly understanding the framework of the cosmos which one is a part of and can never escape. There is no separate outside of the cosmos entity that everyone secretly is, Advaita disagrees. This is subtler than words because this goes into formless realms, realms of meditation that are free from seeming formulation, but Buddhism see's that as a formulation, and Advaita see's it as a condition freed background to things that things superimpose onto. One is right and the other is wrong. In Buddhism, enlightenment is NOT a state of no-thought. The Truth is not found through stripping away, but through realizing and cutting through. This takes a very refined intellect that studies itself on subtle and subtler layers. So, this type of discussion is very, very important. The presentation is different, as is the goal between Theism and Buddhism. The enlightenments are different. It has nothing to do with taking away words and just seeing without concepts. The interpretations of the non-duality experience is different. It's actually deep, subtle and subconscious on a very fast level within the being and how it interprets it's blissful experience of seemingly being one with everything. One way of interpretation leads to re-absorption because of a subtle obscuration of a unified subtle identity that all is one with, the other leads to continuous work for the benefit of all beings because there is no subtle essence that all is one with that is an unconditional identity. Only Buddhism teaches infinite regress with no rooftop theory of a final identity of things. Thus the experience of enlightenment, is different, with or without concepts. Because Buddhism treats concept-less-ness differently.

I am not of the triad of observer or one who is experiencing, not the observed or that which is being experienced. I am beyond all that. I have no beginning nor end. I have no attributes. -- Adi Shankara (800 C.E.) In Buddhism there is no I to have no attributes, either cosmic or whatever, it's all conditional. There is no universal supreme consciousness that is the screen behind everything that everyone is secretly one with. Yes, the message is different and Shankara thought so too. The doctrines of Advaita and Buddhism are not compatible in very subtle and important points. The realization IS different as is the interpretation of the how? and what? about the cosmos. You are so attached to the idea that all religions have the same message that you cannot even read objectively and properly the proofs that state that this is just not true. Xabir's whole presentation has thoroughly subverted the Advaita interpretation of enlightenment.

Many people don't understand that debate IS a practice. One gets to see how well one can stay calm under pressure. How truly refined one's understanding of the dharma is. How spontaneous one's understanding of the dharma is. Also, how to watch one's state while debating. All this new age anti-intellectualism is quite odd to me. It's about refining every aspect of our capacity, as there is nothing to deny when on the path or having realization.

I sometimes wonder why people come onto discussion boards? It must be somewhat neurotic to come onto a discussion board and disparage talk, debate and discussion? Why not instead go look at a blank wall and find yourself?

I wonder why one can't have discussions on boards anymore, working on refining understanding, without people trying to actually become your Guru as if they knew you personally? My understanding has been refined through these discussions. How has yours progressed? Don't worry about my craving, worry about your own. Be well!