Vajrahridaya

Ah, but meditation just means focus. If one studies the 8 fold noble path, the Buddha is very specific about what, "Right View" means and what it doesn't mean. One must meditate with right view. Wolves meditate upon their prey and get it... Theists meditate on an all pervasive Self and thus when phenomena falls away they dissolve their consciousness in that for a certain time, only to pop out eventually when the conditions of focus loose their power and they re-express ignorantly in a new cosmic cycle. Buddhist meditate on the non-self nature of all phenomena from formless featureless concepts to concepts with form, so only offer compassion and remain conscious in manifestation from moment to moment because Samsara is beginning-less and endless without a source. The view is different, the result is different. Meditation is not the same for everyone.

I agree, who knows, but I have read outside of the system. He only started talking about Kashmir Shaivism towards the last mmm... maybe 5 or 6 years of his carrier as a living Siddha Guru? He was very lucid and clear in his interpretations and contextualizing of the Kaula texts... very masterful. He was a great being for sure... in his own right. I feel he would have benefited more from a Vajrayana Guru retreat guide though, he wouldn't have gone through all those confusions and if he had of learned Dzogchen? Even better. No it changes, it's own self definition of who or what is conscious changes, as it's awareness of content deepens to include a vaster space, it's identity to itself changes, when the unconscious is illumined, dreams start having more deeper meaning and one starts having lucid dreams and knows one is traveling in other dimensions and knows that the body is sleeping, one has out of body experiences, visions of great masters, etc. Psychic powers... whatever. The content and consciousness are all interconnected and tied together and everything is really just a pretty display of colors formated according to various concepts, enlightened or not. As consciousness becomes more aware of consciousness and transcends form, and formlessness, it pops out. If you like Kashmir Shaivism, you would benefit from studying some Dzogchen texts which are more in number and have more realized masters about it than Kashmir Shaivism. Even masters who attained the body of light recently even in the last year. Where they left nothing but nails and hair. There are great autobiographies by some great dzogchen masters too that are stunning. Poor Muktananda could have had a better retreat guide and would have had more clear understanding of his guidance if he was a Vajrayana practitioner... lol, karma is karma. But, consciousness is empty of consciousness too, even as a personal screen, even if featureless... so even consciousness is not any foot hold. The difference in interpretation is very subtle, but the realization is so freeing and deeply subtle. Yes but consciousness is still changing according to how much light it generates, how aware of awareness it is based upon the amount of context it includes within form and formless realms. I'm quite aware of my dreams and states in between due to meditative stability of some level or another and wake up often in dreams and have fabulous experiences in dreams. Consciousness and content are interdependent, Consciousness and awareness of consciousness are interdependent. It's very subtle this light that consciousness is that manifests as colors and coagulates as the screen of dark space to glimmer through into three dimensional objects of seeming separation like star spots in space that generate planets, different and unique solar systems, we generate objects of experience all reflecting our own level of awareness of awareness within the personal mind-stream. Yes, consciousness is still consciousness but it only is conscious as far as what it's conscious of, even of itself, even if content passes while it's unconscious, one can follow the chain of content and become conscious of the previously unconscious content, changing consciousness. You are the power behind these voices, they can only reflect what you already know, or have found out for yourself, you are omnipotent in your way of hearing and interpreting. You are probably talking to a theistic god realm representation based upon your own experience and understanding and not letting in another level of understanding on the psychic plane, because you are only open to what you deem experientially fact. Physical karmas while in the physical body are much more tangible while you may be aware of other dimensions, and when you get there they are just as tangible or sometimes even more so without the body, tey are all mirrors of what you deem to be true to a certain extent, subjectivity is very, very strong. You only allow in what your shell has made holes for. Yes, which is why I find Kaula Shaivism to be directly influenced by Dzogchen. You were experiencing the inherently empty and transparent nature of things, so your personal consciousness bloomed passed sense perception doors into consciousness as such levels of perception. So... very awesome! I've also experienced this, and did on such a constant level that I went to a doctor and took medication and it only made me depressed and more agitated. But, I just more focused on my practice and let the med's go, and I felt happiness is the best protection from needless psychic phenomena. I find that the Shiva Sutra and the Prajnabhijahridayam are quite reflective in a way to Dzogchen contemplations without the subtle layer of identity to consciousness as an all pervasive Self that's eternal and unchanging.

Your greatest lier is in the mirror. You sure project a whole lot of your own issues onto others. You can continue on until you are sick of it. Maybe I'll see you then?

But they actually don't, the more substantialist one's do and the experiential level is quite similar and interpretation. But Buddhism parts way's in being totally non-dualistically unsubstantial. The subtle differences create a very subtle difference in the way one interprets experience and thus acts upon the experiences that happen in meditation. Anyway, I would suggest studying the Masters, because Milarepa declared how different they are. Nagarjuna declared the difference and so did the Buddha. This new age theory of they all lead to the same thing, all paths to the same city, all ways up the same mountain? If you understand dependent origination, then you understand that the fruit originates dependent upon the seed planted and the ground it is planted on. Very clear thinking. The experience might be yes, clear openness and wondrous beauty, I love everyone. But Buddhism is very clear on what to do with this experience and how to interpret this experience so that it does actually lead to liberation from unconscious rebirth in a way that no other tradition is. It's very subtle, it's hard to understand without direct experience. I know because I used to argue from the all is one perspective for years with Buddhists. I was much like goldisheavy and seth, with experience to back it up, scholars, texts, quotes, mis-understood buddhist quotes, mis-contextualized information from Buddhism, on and on. But, I was corrected, slowly but surely. Have a wonderful night!

The thing is, is that your reading into Buddhism from a hindu standpoint, not seeing it from a Buddhist standpoint, or even from the Buddhas teachings. Read all the Pali Suttas, why not? They don't state what you have stated. You should get transmission from a real lineage master of Vajrayana sadhana and practice it and ask direct questions from the master. There are many real Vajrayana masters still around. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Garchen Rinpoche, so, so, many real humble and deeply experienced yogi's of that tradition with real retreat experience and integration with the world. But... whatever... keep seeking and keep studying. Boy, your a pretty negative person. I see Chogyal Namkhai Norbu from an entirely different standpoint. Who's correct? I guess we both are since it's all products of our own karma and that's our reality, subjective. I don't believe you... bye! No, I don't lack in my understanding. I know what they teach. Maya is the phenomenal expression of consciousness, maya is the illusion of duality, maya is this and that. Only pure consciousness is the real basis, Everything is made of one consciousness, is expressed then re-absorbed, then expressed. This is all called Samsara in Buddhism. Anyway... no Advaita Vedanta does not pre-date the Buddha. It starts with Gaudapada's interpretation of the Upanishads. There was no advaita vedanta during the time of the Buddha. Vasisthas Yoga was supposedly spoken during the time of Rama, but it mentions the Buddha Shakyamuni in it and it's terminology and it's texts were found in the A.C. of time repute. Anyway... like I said, you have not understood a single word I've spoken. I'll be patient though... You keep projecting Hindu interpretation onto an entirely different way of thinking and interpretation of experience itself. No Buddhist agree's with you, because you are wrong. They are not the same! The switch of understanding that just hasn't been turned on yet though. There is wisdom in all paths, no denying that, but the Buddha is specific about what liberation is in Buddhism and it is different than what liberation is in other traditions. It's not a frame work, it's just how the cosmos works. You still take featureless, conceptualess consciousness as a basis, that is a frame work, some sort of borge like framework and sucks all other frameworks into it and say's there all the same. That's a dogma! A Hindu dogma, which the Buddha did not agree with from the very beginning. Study more Buddhism before you claim to know what Buddhism teaches. Study it with an open mind leaving your Hindu interpretations at the door with your ego. Hinduism is beautiful, it's a wonderful path and I experienced incredible states of consciousness, bliss, devotion, etc. But, later I found it's interpretation of these states to be lacking... All the best. Instant awakening path? No... just an instant glimpse path where we have to practice that glimpse through various methods until it is permanent. Also, many people in Dzogchen don't actually study the texts, but many do. I find there are tons of incredibly secure Dzogchenpas, I guess it's not your karma to meet them? As far as Chogyal Namkhai Norbus insecurities... I think he's a mirror for goldisheavy. He must be seeing his own insecurities. See some of his videos, around the world with Lama 1 and 2 and do some retreats with him. I only see his enlightenment! I have many incredible lucid experiences, in my dreams and corroborated through talks and emails with him. He's an aaaaaaamazing teacher of a super high caliber. I see some highly realized Dzogchenpas under his wing too. But, whatever... I think my vision is better than yours. Rofl!

Yes, Siddha Yoga... it has real shaktipat, it follows the teachings of Abhinavagupta and Kshemaraja, has many scholars of the Kaula tradition, some of the most important ones on earth in fact that practice it. So incomplete? That would be your opinion. Swami Muktananda started practicing the practices of the Tantraloka in secret towards the end of his life, but fully taught the 36 tattvas and the teachings of the Shiva Sutras. He had incredible Siddhi's and realization, etc. He was a great yogi of high realization within the Shaivite system. But you are entitled to your opinion. Yes, it does change, from moment to moment it is not the same, it and it's content are not different. It changes in meditation, it changes when your not in meditation, it changes when you experience deep meditation, etc. Consciousness changes. It changes when it's featureless, it changes when it's still, it changes... You say we were not always conscious but are you talking about Consciousness itself or the present individual content within Consciousness? When you were in the unconscious state experiencing whatever formless level you identified with, neither perception or non-perception bliss, infinite consciousness bliss, nothingness bliss, there are different formless states where you are not conscious of having a body or thoughts, or time. Yes.. Yes, you pass through the unconscious space and if one is not a realized yogi, where there is no more unconsciousness, one only identifies consciousness with certain forms of habit, so one forgets pre-birth experiences. I've met people who remembered where they came from before they became conscious of being in the womb. Consciousness is it's content, like I said before, yogi's who meditated and realized the state of consciousness where the content was neither perception, nor non-perception then came back to layering all sorts of denser aspects, thought that this was the nirguna brahman and the supreme source of being, but really it was just a focus on a state beyond forms and thoughts where consciousness proliferates a dimension beyond tangible expression, it's still a change in consciousness based upon content. A formless concept, or form concept, consciousness changes. I've felt intimately connected with my lover, like we were intermingled, but no, not totally one with her. I've even seen through another persons eyes, but I did not know everything that they knew about them. Total oneness is an over romanticized assumptive interpretation of an experience where subject and object fall away and consciousness merges with infinite space, you still are NOT that person nor that persons karmas. You only connect, not total oneness. I've experienced this many, many times, daily, sometimes for elongated periods of time. I've experienced what is called nirguna brahman in deep meditation when I got shaktipat from Gurumayi and realized later that it was an experience where my consciousness proliferated through the inherently empty quality of all objects and subjects, no sense of universe, no sense of there having been a universe, total fullness, translucent darkness, total consciousness. When I came too my body consciousness, there was great bliss and a sense of deep connection with everyone and I loved everyone and wanted to hug everyone and say, "Why do you suffer, you are God"... I realized later through Buddhist psychology what this experience actually was, it is a good experience, but it's contextualized much more objectively now. I've experienced that state many times, but I realize it's more akin to Buddha nature, experiencing the potential for everyone's liberation that is inherent because all things are inherently empty of any reality, even consciousness. It's just your subtler consciousness, your subtle connections in past lives, your unconscious entities or selves. I've experienced all this directly and have better answers that are more objective through Buddhism. Deities still talk to me, great beings from higher realms, etc. There are Gods, and they will talk with you, and there are bodhisattvas and if you connect to the dimension of Bodhisattvas, they will talk with you, they are enlightened aspects of one's own potentiality. Have it your way, most people do on these boards, I find no one really changes their mind much, no matter how long one argues for. I changed my mind though, I did find and realize that the unanswered questions I had from Shaivism were answered through Buddhism. When you get to that place, it might not be this lifetime, you might find and ask more. What happens when you die? What will happen when you realize final liberation? Answer these questions? Only Mahayana answers these questions. Mahayana talks about the activities of enlightened beings, how enlightened beings manifest their powers to proliferate dharma and pacify the suffering. Shaivism mostly just says you serve people and then you die and go to Siddhaloka, which is not a permanent realm because it's based on an idea of a permanent consciousness, but even Vasistha's Yoga say's it's not permanent, it all falls down, even after a long, long time. Buddha realms are based on dependent origination, not on an illusion that consciousness does not change. The merits of a Buddha realm are based on the fact that samsarins keep cycling, even after the end of the cosmic eon, even the gods brahma and vishnu die and are re-absorbed and other brahma and vishnu's will take their place. It's interesting, did you know that Swami Muktananda actually kept Kashmir Shaivism from becoming extinct, most people know about it because of him, even in India. There used to be tons and tons of devotees in India before he died, and all around the world. He really saved many scriptures from being destroyed. Even though I don't really follow that line of interpretation anymore and find it incomplete compared to Dzogchen in practice and philosophy. Gurumayi even set up the http://www.muktabodha.org/ Institute, check it out. It has a vast resource of Sanskrit texts and has some of the best scholars in the world translating texts into English. Also the Vedashala there which is preserving a dying Vedic culture. Anyway... all the best!

Yes, I read different things concerning when the authentic teachings would die, soon after could mean lots of things, there's numerology, blah, blah, blah. There seems to be unbroken lineages though with certain traditions. Who knows? Meditate and follow what seems right as you evolve. My experiences are just because I practiced for many lives. No big deal. I went through a period of very, very intense study in this life as well... My practice is not as intense, but I still have wonderful dreams and lucid meditations from time to time. I'm no Buddha though, in any sense of the meaning of the term, forgetting all the non-dualistic paradoxical arguments one can get into, I still experience psychological suffering from time to time, I'm just not as attached to it. Your very welcome to contact me though! I'm always happy to have more Buddhist friends, to learn from and share with, is always good. We should always help influence each other in positive ways.

From this one might gather that there does seem to be proof. I'm not a Dzogchen scholar. But, there is proof that it pre-exists it's entrance into Tibet. Lots of proofs get destroyed by the Muslim invasion of the 600's. Anyway, there does seem to be texts that were preserved, as they are listed in order in the book, Kunjed Gyalpo. Why are you so disparaging? "This garbage"! What sort of talk is that? Yes, sure, Zen is cool. Dzogchen form of Buddhism which I practice came onto earth only a few hundred years after the Buddha left. Anthropologists are also finding that Vajrayana in India has older and older roots. The whole idea that Buddhism will die is why another Buddha comes. The Mahayana came into effect at the same time that the Pali Suttas were really being produced as well. All these different lineages of Buddhism are pretty much quite connected to B.C. era. I find no pollution. I do take the position of A is better than B, of course. So did the Buddha as stated in the Pali suttas. Your welcome to your opinion, just try to base it on fact and direct experiencing more and more. Study, experience, find out! You have endless time to do so... no worries. Oh... another thing. Zen does not lead to the Body of light as Dzogchen does, so the approach is different, and the result is different. Dzogchen's whole basis is founded on the very first statement of the Buddha. That mind and it's phenomena are pure and uncompounded since beginning-less time. But still, Zen seems cool. I've read about lots of their patriarchs. Also Chan seems cool too, the precursor to Zen. I like Tich Naht Hanh too! I used to read his writings some 15 years ago with much enthusiasm.

That idea that he won against every school in his area is based on the fact that most schools were destroyed by the Muslim invasion and he didn't really have that many people to argue against. Besides the idea that he won them all is also a Hindu biased approach to history. He never argued against some Dzogchenpas just north of him. I know the schools that he argued and they were pretty lack luster. I know because I was introduced to these schools of Buddhism when I was a student of his form of Shaivism. Anyway... it's not that Consciousness does not exist, it's that it's dependently originated. Your still thinking that Buddhists take emptiness as an absolute ground, that non-existence is the absolute nature of things. That's not what the Buddha was teaching. What Kashmir Shaivism teaches, as I was raised with this tradition and have experienced much of it and have read many of it's texts and I even have some rare translations of Abhinavaguptas chapters from his Tantraloka. Anyway, what Kaula Shaivism teaches is that all is of one consciousness and that consciousness is absolute and everything is an expression of this one consciousness. Dzogchen teaches that a persons individual consciousness is the source of his own bondage or liberation and that liberation is found through seeing consciousness directly empty of inherent nature and part of the infinite and endless web of dependent origination, this transcends cause and effect, because everything is an elaboration of one's own consciousness, this is beyond paradox, but still, each mind-stream is individually beginning-less through endless interdependency. Kaula Shaivism still posits an absolute source of all things collectively, that there is nothing that exists that is not shiva, or true and total consciousness. For an individual, in Dzogchen, yes you are the source of your own bondage or liberation, thus your consciousness is the supreme source, but it is not the supreme source of everyones bondage or liberation. There is no primal cause, everything is looped endlessly interconnected like this... When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.[ also... With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises With Contact as condition, Feeling arises With Feeling as condition, Craving arises With Craving as condition, Clinging arises With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise Yes, this all happens within one's consciousness, but one was not always a conscious being if one looks at the complexity of Buddhist cosmology which transcends a singular source of all, one see's that one was in a latent and dormant state of potentiality at the beginning of the universe which was churned by the light of the first born from this potentiality. The Gods of this universe are the one's who had lots of merit from the previous universe, while Buddhas ascend to Buddha realms. The first borns occupy their dimension of experience and their light, lights up this potentiality and thus beings manifest in subtle energy forms, thus that God thinks he created these beings out of his will, and the process goes into more and more densities through various complexities into lower god realms, human realms, ghost realms, demon realms, then back up to the end of this universal cycle and that first born is the last to dissolve into the formless potentiality that they believe is the featureless blissful Self. Buddhas transcend this... Kaula or Kashmir Shaivism still states that even though you are one with Shiva, you do not have the power of cosmic creation and only shiva does. In Buddhism, when you become a Buddha you can manifest a pure realm and emanate bodies of enlightenment from there to help beings that are trapped in this substantive attachment to a Self, or mutable identity Self and continue to cycle between formless and form realms of differing densities. There is no primal cause in Buddhism, just endless chains of causation interconnected. You break free, only you break free and you don't break the person next to you free. From this freedom you can influence, but you can't liberate. In Kashmir Shaivism, consciousness is independent, real and true, it's one and many, everything is it's expression. Why would this blissful consciousness become lower hell realms? Even out of shear potential because the excuse made in Kashmir Shaivism is that, "Infinite Consciousness is infinitely creative" so then it chooses to suffer unimaginable pains in lower realms as an expression of it's freedom while all the while not being that suffering and pain? Sorry... I find the 36 tattvas of Kashmir Shaivism to be limited and don't answer all my questions. Buddhist cosmology makes more sense. No divine will behind this play of experience... just a vast and infinite process that produces infinite variables of experiences through conscious and evolving experiencers and each experiencer is the cause of his or her own experience through his or her consciousness, though influenced by other experiencers simultaneously. Buddhism is more complex, but more complete of a view and truly is unbinding in it's outcome. Dependent origination and emptiness is not found in any other tradition but Buddhism.

I've already gone through this line of contemplation, encountering and realization. There's deeper. Your just talking about paradox and it's experience. Buddhist revelation IS deeper as I have deeply encountered. No, my understanding isn't shallow, it's very specific. I've come across these teachers and there teachings. I've meditated deeply on them, I've traversed the different Jhanas from form to formless first experiencing form jhanas at the age of 5 and formless jhanas by the age of 14 and been to many of the realms spoken about in scriptures directly. Thank you for your clear lack of humility though, your ego seems as heavy as gold. Some women might, and some men might have to be reborn as women. Besides, I don't follow these sexist teachers and I understand that there are plenty who pervert any teaching. You have very little about me to go on to even think you know who you are talking to or what I may know. But please continue to assume as it pleases you. Wow, what a stance you take? If I'm lucky I'll be like you?? WOW... Your interpretation is dangerous, that's all. Ah, more Paradox. I grew up with Hindu concepts and direct experiencing since I was a little kid in a great lineage of highly evolved and disciplined masters, not Buddhas, but very powerful and compassionate yogi's. Sorry, Hinduism misses the mark, and all it's good stuff is taken from Buddhism. Buddhism has plenty of paradox and non-linear perspectives. I guess you haven't studied much Vajrayana, or received transmission from a genuine lineage master of Vajrayana? I wouldn't pretend to assume... You haven't even begun to understand a single thing I've said, your identity is so threatened that you take the stance of a great yogi, but you are revealing that you have a flawed source of perception that didn't even contemplate anything I said thus making many assumptions based upon this flawed interpretation of my words. It's quite absurd really. Just like it takes two to conceive of a one. More paradox... I already went through that humdrum and transcended it. Yeah yeah yeah... No where in Hinduism and no where does a Hindu teach infinite regression and endless mindstreams, conscious offering of merit, and dependent origination, etc. Your sloppy Hindu based abstract thinking misses the specific points of view that Buddha expressed as the 8 fold noble path. All Hindus teach an alpha, and an omega. I'm familiar with all the great Hindu scriptures, creation stories, Maharamayana, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Shankara, Abhinavagupta... blah, blah, blah. I've attended official fire ceremonies of different import of great power with great beings and highly evolved brahmans doing the offerings and seen the deities. Good stuff, holy stuff, deep stuff, but Buddhahood IS deeper. Your just protecting your threatened identity of the all is one camp and don't at all understand dependent origination as of yet. I was there when Brahma opened his eyes and saw the cosmos unfold with incredible bliss and power looking through his eyes, I then turned to see infinite Brahmas and realized I had created nothing. I've experienced Shiva and realized that even Shiva knows that he created nothing, but that his followers need a substance to hold onto so he plays as a God, but knows he's just a part of a vast flow without origin. Only Buddhism explains this clearly and has an incredible amount of methods and techniques for direct realization, many of which Hindu's stole. Anyway... I don't want to talk experience, because bloated ego's like yours get carried away. A blessed and happy life is not the same as full and total liberation from the cycle of Samsara, not by a long shot. No matter how blissed you are and giving and kind, etc. These are blessed and great, but not necessarily the revelation of liberation. The Buddha was very specific, not abstract, but specific, he was not sloppy, but clear, he was stern about the meaning of things, not hokey pokey airy fairy. Go meditate deep enough to see more than 100 past lives directly, and even past lives that pre-date this solar system, then come back and talk to me about how much better you are than me. Sheesh... A person can't talk scripture and specifics without getting bashed by a self proclaimed great being anymore?

Yes, move within... my lucid dream states and meditative states have revealed a lot. The trip is going to be personal, but the view is very specific when it comes to Buddhism and interpersonal. It's not a all is one type of interpretation, though the cosmos does work in one way and one way only, interdependently. Also, the way one works with the energy specifically reveals different fruits. The energy systems of the different paths don't always agree because we are working with subtler than body energy and formating that as karmic receptacles for specific results which are different dependent upon the spiritual view. Buddhism reveals just how complex it all is and dependent origination does NOT point to nothingness and emptiness does NOT mean nothingness. This is a meditative and mystical revelation that is quite specific in Buddhism. One could call the flow of dependent origination as Tao (as in "The Way)... but one would have to scrutinize to the point of emptiness, which does not mean nothing, but rather no inherent, static beingness. Calling any substratum inherently real and true, Tao, God or whatever, saying we are all one with this... does lead to future recycling. See you didn't see my main point was that Buddhism actually describes WHAT liberation from Samsaric experience is through many ways yes, the final way being called Dzogchen, Ati Yoga, or Mahamudra because it goes right into the expression of the fruit of practice and focuses on that fruit as practice rather than in lower vehicles in Buddhism that mostly just talk about practice and philosophy and not so much the actual experience as Vajrayana gets into. In Dzogchen you engage directly with the experience of what it is to be liberated through transmission from a master and have a liberated outlook throughout the entire cycle of practice that one undergoes to make that glimpse of direct perception of liberation a permanent state of constant cognition. I know other traditions talk about this too, but the view is off so the outcome is going to be different. You asked about Tao, but how can one talk about Tao without talking about those that talked about Tao? How liberated were they, and how omniscient were they before they came up with a term to describe some sort of ultimate nature of things? Other paths are religions. Buddhism is a clear system that offers many different ways to experience directly dependent origination... Emptiness is more of a philosophical term that points to nothing other than the flow that is dependent origination, or interdependent co-origination. Emptiness is not nothingness, but just the fact that I as a perceiver and part of the whole flow have no inherent self, that my self is a coagulation of experiences and interpretations all linked in a chain of causation leading beginning-less in origin. So, according to the Buddhas teachings, the interpretation of a mystical experience as a substantial and self existing substratum that is all and nothing, which is the same descriptions we find about Brahman (the impersonal featureless consciousness that is the mirror that all reflects upon) is all a mis-interpretation of meditative experience. The cycle of Samsara is so deep and tenacious that just because one meditates deeply and has deep mystical experiences does not mean that one knows liberation, just maybe subtler forms of samsara, which was the Buddhas point in setting up the 6 realm system of interpretation with the 31-planes of existence. link to 31 planes of existence. I also grew up getting acupuncture as my mom would trade her art for free sessions and yes I've experienced the benefits. It's not that this stuff is not beneficial, it's just that the Buddha was specific about what liberation from samsara or the emancipation from recycling and unconscious rebirth of one's mind stream and exactly how the entire cosmos works. He's very specific when he say's that, This is the view that liberates and these other views do not, even though they do lead to benefit, they don't lead to final emancipation from unconscious re-birth. When I was a practicing Advaita Shaivite, I saw directly the truths that Shaivism talked of and saw them as absolute and shared by all religions, the one God that expressed as it all and all the religions were just ways that this God in all compassion brought beings back to him/herself. I didn't understand dependent origination and that my experience, though supposedly highly evolved, blissful, merged with the cosmos, powerful, meditative experiences of going to different realms and dimensions, talking with and seeing great Gods of my lineage. I meditated for years in an Ashram for 4 to 6 hours daily also chanting 4 to 6 hours and offering selfless service the rest of the time, sleeping little, eating little and healthy, writing in my journal and reading sacred texts from all traditions from coptic christians, bibles, nag hammadi library, dead sea scrolls, st. john of the cross, st. francis of assisi, miester eckhart, theresa of avila and lisieux, st. hildigard van bingen, etc., Taoist material, tons of Hindu stuff and saints, Jnaneshwar, Tukaram, Mirabai, Janabai, etc., Sufi mystics, Rumi, Hafiz, Mansur Mastana, Rabia, Kabbalah stuff, on and on... Even Buddhist stuff, but translated wrong with misunderstandings of emptiness/dependent origination plastered all over them due to heavy christian influence or hindu influence, mis-contextualizing the teachings of these Buddhist Masters and glazing them over with Hindu substantialist sensibilities. The whole idea of a tea coming from one pot is a very Theistic interpretation, or Monist where everything is a singular substance expressed in different ways. Buddhism does not believe in this but see's this as an interpretation of mystical experience that limits and eventually rebinds, even if it seems blissful for some time, at the end of the cosmic eon it only leads to recycling, even if one enters into a high bliss realm after death, without direct perception of dependent origination, no liberation. These types of interpretations listed above all lead to long lived god realms in refined forms or even as formless pervasive beings of love and power, but not final liberation, and the so called immortals of Taoism don't base their realm on the right understanding of dependent origination, which is a product of direct perception and not merely an expression of logic. So, they are not really immortal, they might just live in a refined realm for trillions of years. Because of the clarity of Buddhism there is a great seamlessness between direct experience and the clarity of explanation that is not paralleled anywhere that I have found.

I'll try to refrain from kicking dear evZENy. If one looks at Taoism as it stands now, it is heavily influenced by Chan Buddhism when Bodhidharma brought the Dharma to China. As Buddhism was expressed through Taoist language in it's dissemination across China, they are quite merged through that way. Taoism before Buddhism was kind of a counter culture hedonist movement led by Chuang Tzu, about spontaneous acceptance, non-renunciation, worshiping nature, and skepticism but it eventually kind of merged with Confucianism, and there are all sorts of branches of Taoism, not really a seamless spiritual tradition with a single core, though they kind of grew together I suppose over time and with Buddhist influence. Though yes, the I-Ching (book of changes, which I grew up using and still do to this day and find much wisdom and guidance through it) and Tao De Ching (kind of a vague book of nice fortune cookie platitudes commented on and expanded upon over thousands of years, though nice and good is not a system to liberation) all pre-exist the coming of Bodhidharma. There was seemingly a pretty cool fragmented system going on with the astrology, Confucianism and these early guys Chuang Tzu and Laozi. I suppose there were very secret sects who practiced certain things like revealed in "Opening the Dragons Gate" and "Chronicles of Tao" which are more than likely romanticized versions of history to a certain extent because it's all mostly at this point so influenced by Buddhism over the last 2,300 years that Taoism before Buddhism, like Hinduism before the Buddha was quite different and not at all systemized. The Buddha was clear about the total truth and the system to realization from the very beginning of his 40 year carrier as a preacher, unlike anywhere and anyone else, and the Buddha wasn't skeptical, he just knew and saw through all other systems of philosophy and practice. Thus his system is vehemently clear from the very beginning. So, though Chinese history is complicated as hell and the folklore seems to be influenced by all sorts of things, including some Hindu Puranas with the Monkey God, or maybe the Hindus got that from them, there doesn't seem to be as nearly a complete cosmology and agreement on what exactly and specifically enlightenment or liberation from the cycle of re-birth or what re-birth is and how it's all done. Mostly there's a focus on immortality and yes compassion, spontaneity and what not and with the coming of Chan, there's meditation now but not necessarily with "The View" that unbinds. But Taoism as a whole seems to be kind of like Hinduism was before Buddhism, a whole bunch of scattered traditions loosely based on each other through various ways. In all my studies of it, I don't find it a complete system to real liberation from proliferation. It is a substantialist path deeming everything to be of a singular kind of impersonal organism named "The Tao", a kind of constant flow that one should let go of one's ridged self ideas and merge into, which is good but the revelation doesn't seem to be complete. Though, I'm sure it's practice leads to higher re-birth and accumulation of merit, focus and power, in and of itself, it doesn't seem to offer the omniscience of Buddhahood. It's a cool system though with some nice reads. These days Taoism is a whole lot of things together, with Kung Fu and Tai Chi, bringing together the Indian Chakra system and meridian points, could very well have been found on their own through deep meditation of course and not just scripted from external sources. At this point, it's a system that carries a whole lot of influences that were not at all what the first teachings on the Tao were. Unlike Buddhism which had a very clear system always. One could write a huge book on this... I find myself just rambling. You did ask my opinion.

Oh, I can dig it! I still have hard wired into my system that attachment due to a lifetime of study and practice under the view of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. I just know very consciously that my subconscious is wrong, lol!

Oh yes, most definitely! The same thing happened with me when I argued as a Trika Advaita Shaivite with Namdrol some 7 or more years ago and we argued for like a whole year or more in so many threads at E-Sangha. He obviously finally won. I had to concede as I started to experience directly the truths he was granting me access to. He also was a way better historian than I.

No it is not a departure from Nagarjuna because he both shows the two truths and subverts them. An example of the resultant being the Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra, composed around the 200's, with it's, no ear consciousness, etc. no consciousness period, etc. no emptiness, etc. no liberation, no bondage, nothing to attain, no one to attain it, etc. Also no, the syntax is not different. The handling of Brahman in Hindu cosmology is totally different from the handling of emptiness in Buddhist cosmology. Both Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism show that Brahman is ultimately real, the true identity of things, the one consciousness that is the all, the one in the many. That which is the final common denominator of all things. That which things spring from and return too, and all the while are, thus maya does not exist. This is not the same as the Buddhist Shunyata. If you understood dependent origination, you would understand that different systems lead to different places, because result originates dependent upon view. Even in Buddhism there are different ways that enlightenment manifests dependent upon the system, but they all revolve around dependent origination so all lead eventually to final emancipation regardless of how it appears. You have not yet understood dependent origination, it is not just how phenomena are empty, it is also how consciousness, from form to formless is also empty of inherent existence and it reveals infinite regress, no primordial source of things, no cosmic "all is one" will. Emptiness is empty as well, there is no emptiness, emptiness does not inherently exist. Hindu's find it hard to accept that Buddhism is in fact different and has been different since the Buddha declared that it was different, and it seems that only Buddhists know this because only Buddhists understand intuitively what dependent origination actually means. Because if you actually did, you would become Buddhist. Buddhism has always been elitist. The Buddha was an elitist, arguing with all other forms of spirituality of the time and every Buddhist master from then on has been elitist. The Dalai Lama is elitist, but compassionate with the understanding that not everyone is going to get it, so that people need their own rate of evolution so is not a person that goes out to conquer the world with Buddhism. The Buddha was the same way and taught some beings a kind of worldly dharma that would help them build enough merit and lead to higher rebirths to understand dependent origination in the future. Dzogchen on the surface seems to be somewhat like Kashmir Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta, but really since Dzogchen is earlier, it's more that these paths are trying to be like Dzogchen. But the mis-understanding is that, when Dzogchen was taught in secret, it was taught to those that already understood dependent origination. Rigpa is merely the recognition of the Buddhas 6 realm model and the 31 planes of existence as all elaborations of one's own consciousness which is "The Supreme Source" for the experience of liberation, or bondage and is inherently free from such distinctions because as I stated before, things don't really arise, including consciousness. There is no consciousness as final and true, no awareness that is final or true in Buddhism period. There is only the realization or constant awareness of dependent origination, that is dependent upon realization of dependent origination and not on itself, and thus there is also no emptiness and no brahman. In Hindu cosmology, Brahman is the re-absorber at the end of the cosmic eon, there is no eternal liberation for hindus because they think that they are all part of this one mass of consciousness that they all came from and realize through yoga, then re-absorb into at the end of the cosmic eon. Even Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva all arise and subside in Brahman and Brahman is this vast and mysterious will. Read Vasistha's Yoga, read any Hindu cosmology, all the God's of Hinduism that teach Hinduism, including Shiva are dated, were born and die. Well actually not Shiva because Chakrasamvara liberated Shiva before the Kali Yuga, but he still manifests as a worldly deity until his time to manifest as a Buddha sometime in the future where he will teach the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold noble path and dependent origination. These are Dharma seals, and these seals are what separates Buddhism from all other spiritual traditions. Buddhism is the first tradition to use the term Sanatana Dharma, but Hindu's took that too. Even all this talk about Brahman being emptiness is just an expression of Hindus trying to keep an identity, while really Hinduism is a whole bunch of different traditions, there's the Vedic, the Shamkya, the South Indian Shaivites who countered the Vedic culture, the forrest dwellers who wrote some of the very early Upanishads, the best of which were written after the coming of the Buddha. Advaita Vedanta is based on the teachings of Gaudapada, who's teaching of Ajativada (non-origination) is obviously from the teachings of Nagarjuna. Advaita Vedanta also seems heavily influenced a lot by Asangas Yogacara as well, which is a highly misunderstood system, because its only to be treated as a meditative system and only Buddhist if coupled with Nagarjunas Madhyamaka. Also Trika Shaivism is most likely influenced by Dzogchen due to proximity in Oddiyana, but in a mis-understood and incomplete way, thus no Jalus or body of light as fruit in Trika (though there is talk of Shaivite masters attaining something like it, but the result is different since the view is different). The result originates dependent upon the view, if no "Right View" from the 8 fold noble path, no true liberation. Buddhism is the only system that is completely seamless from the first turning to the fourth turning, though of course not all systems accept later turnings, but all systems accept the Pali Suttas as the first definer of all the systems. But, not all the Hindus used to refer to the Vedas as supreme, though most do now due to the proliferation of Advaita Vedanta which kind of brought many types of Hinduisms together, after the Muslims destroyed Buddhism in India. Anyway, your Advaita Vedanta is really kind of a crypto Buddhism, without Buddha anymore, because you've reified emptiness as a catch all supreme entity that holds everything as a singular being calling it Brahman, thus Advaita Vedanta is Monism, essentially eternalism and not at all a vehicle that leads to Buddhahood, simply because it misunderstands Dependent Origination. All the best!

One could also say that because dependent origination is the ultimate truth, that there is no ultimate truth. That's what unbinds, uncompounds, and reveals that nothing truly arises, nor is there any place that anything arises from. This is ultimate happiness and total freedom!

Yes, but they are different then the way Hinduism recognizes them and are different in the conclusion as well. Also, Buddhism transcends them entirely in the Dzogchen presentation and see's them as limited. The two truths in Buddhism is, things appear, but ultimately have no essential nature both in and of themselves and in total. To elaborate. There is no ultimate truth in Buddhism, only ultimate realization. Or, one could also say that the ultimate truth is dependent origination. For more information, read Nagarjuna.

There is no objectless consciousness that shines independently that all things are a part of. This is a misunderstanding of the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception. Consciousness is dependent upon that which it is aware of, even non-conceptual concepts that have no qualities, or shine as sat chit ananda. In Buddhism, there is no primordial source of things. Multiplicity is interconnected, like a jeweled net, this is the Dharmakaya, but each individual mind stream is individually infinite since beginning-less time, the Dharmakaya is not a substratum, it is dependent origination/emptiness. The subtle obscuration of a catch all non-conceptual concept of an all pervasive consciousness is what beings fall into at the end of the appearance of this universe into a dormancy, only to be re-expressed in another universe when those dormancy karmas have the condition to awake. Those that have a high level of merit from a previous universe become the first born in a new one, and being first born, they think they are the gods of this new universe and teach of a singular source. If you remember in various Puranas, even the three gods, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu fight over who's the real source of the universe. In Buddhism this never happens because there is no identity behind anything, everything is dependently originated and emptiness is merely a way of describing dependent origination, that there is no inherent self to anything, and is not a meditative state, it is merely a way of describing D.O. Even the state of beyond perception and non-perception is dependently originated and empty of an abiding self. Hindu's call this Jhana Brahman, because as things start superimposing over this state of mind in a seemingly top down fashion when one comes out of meditation, the person goes from infinite to finite seemingly and thus make religions that follow this type of metaphysics. But, dependent origination which is the Right View that Shakyamuni discusses in the 8 fold noble path, cuts right through this. It's an intuitive experience that see's right through all elaborations from formless to form and leaves no foot hold. It's not the same difference, Buddhism actually does lead to a different realization that is subtler. Because there is no Self, or self, the only way an enlightened beings consciousness keeps going is through the endless offering of merits to infinite samsarins. So one has a permanent state of enlightened consciousness that is dependent on the fact that samsara is infinite and there are infinite universes. So in Buddhism, enlightenment is not based on there being a subtle infinite nirguna brahman substratum. There is no divine and mysterious will according to Buddhism, there is only dependent origination, this is the flow of energy through endless space and the arisings, sustaining and fallings of endless universes. No infinite omnipotent power behind it all. It is all omnipotence as a whole, but the whole is a bunch of parts that are connected, like a web, but each mind stream is infinitely individual though connected to all other mind streams in complex and unique ways. Buddhism is a non-substantialist non-duality, while Hinduism is a substantialist non-duality. Hindu's consider everything to be of one substance, like the sun shining through many holes in paper, each hole an individual expression of the radiance. But in Buddhism, there is the recognition of many suns with individual history's of cause and effect, and yes an enlightened being can manifest as many beings with the accumulation of merits. Buddhist cosmology and enlightenment is different. The Buddha said, if there was a universal essence to take refuge in for final liberation, I would have taught that, but there is not, so I do not teach that. According to the Buddha, Nirguna Brahman is another subtle level obscuration. He has said so since the very first turning. Buddhism is an entirely different way of seeing how the cosmos works and what enlightenment actually is. Buddhist cosmology is much more complex. I was born and raised Hindu and have read all the texts and when I saw the difference directly through experience and transmission, I was amazed at how blind I was to the truth of dependent origination. All my life Hindu teachers have taught me that it's all the same, but it seemed that they had never really studied Buddha's Buddhism as it was taught by the Buddha. Take Care!

Very good! Yes, Hindus intermingle the absorption experience with the experience of phenomena merging the two as a single entity... thus their version of Sahajasamadhi, which is different from the interpretation of a Buddhist meditator who interprets based upon the Right view exposed by Shakayamuni who bases the view upon D.O. I wanted to add that Buddhist cosmology goes into the explanation of infinite universes, so even when this universe extinguishes itself as things arise, sustain and subside... (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, all aspects of Samsara), a Buddha see's the causes and conditions inter-dependent upon an infinite progression of universes within infinite dimensions, so instead of taking repose into a formless state of samadhi a Buddha continues his or her work in other universes indefinitely! Thus Buddhist cosmology is truely that which embraces infinitude. Bless!

Therefore, an enlightened beings consciousness persists indefinitely dependent upon offering merits indefinitely dependent upon the fact that infinite samsarins persistently arise in different ways throughout infinite samsara, and not based upon the idea of an eternal consciousness, which is an idea that arises dependent upon a mis-interpretation of a state of meditation that causes many beings to believe in metaphysical views, creating from top down philosophies, such as monism. Belief in such leads one to basically re-absorb at the end of a universal display into a formless realm, thinking it's an essence in and of itself, independent and self existing.

Also dependently originated. Consciousness is dependent upon what it is aware of. Even if it's aware of beyond perception and non-perception. It arises each moment and sub-moment in a dependent fashion. Consciousness does not inherently exist. It is an aspect of the beginningless chain, if free'd from itself it shines luminously dependent upon seeing dependency directly.

Hi Enishi, Your issue is like with most Westerners who first come across the Buddhist explanation. You are seeing from a Nihilistic standpoint because your used to looking from a top down point of view where everything has a singular source that all things come from and go back into and are pervaded by. Buddhism subverts this so one habitually replaces this idea of a source with a kind of objective "nothingness" and the subconscious freaks out, "There's nothing there?" No... everything is here! Buddhism is more of a sideways view. There are tons of consciousness', infinite consciousness', there are god realms, powerful gods who control the people who succumb to them and give them blessings from their own accumulations of merit, which you may become, there are lower realms, there is energy, there is movement. There is actually no nothing, there is no child of a barren women, no rabbit's horns. Things do exist and because they exist things continue to exist from formless to form, each connected to the other. Things, in and of themselves don't exist on their own is all emptiness is saying, not that void is absolute, or that nothingness is the true nature of things, no, not at all. This is a common mistake. Dependent origination/emptiness is saying that each point leads to every other point in a vast web of infinite regress and progress. The intuitive understanding of dependent origination and emptiness is an entirely different way of viewing than the substance as source view of theism and monism. It most generally takes transmission of the real experiential Dharma from a qualified master to get that switch in perception on a deep level. I am familiar with Magus of Strovolos. I read it when I was a Hindu practitioner. It's very nice and a good read. Quite interesting. As it's said by various Buddhist Masters, people in worldly paths can have all the worldly siddhis (powers), but the ultimate siddhi of complete liberation from the cycle of absorption and re-expression comes with seeing directly dependent origination. It's fine to want to follow this path, it has much fruit and great joy, bliss, pleasure, reaches to the heavens, grants powers of perception, wealth, etc. It has it's truths that are true within the realm of the grand illusion of existence. It just doesn't lead to total liberation from re-cycling, that is all. The Buddha elaborated in the 8 fold noble path in the 600's B.C. the "Right View". He names two Right Views. One is mundane which leads to the accumulation of merit and supports the sentient being within the realm of Samsara, leading to favorable rebirths and a great current birth. That is the view with taints and that is included in the theistic views. The view without taints is the view that see's dependent origination and leads to the total eradication of dukkka or psychological suffering in all it's possible forms and future forms which is found only in Buddhism, because only Buddhism teaches dependent origination as Shakyamuni elaborated it without the blemish of a final identity or entity. The cosmic process still persists, and emptiness is not a final state of mind, or voidness is not the essence of things in any sort of real sense. Emptiness in Buddhism is merely a way of explaining dependent origination and is not an existent. This is a very important and subtle point that most Westerners cannot see due to a subtle obscuration in the Western mind set that generally see's from a sort of absolutism, black and white viewing. Buddhism see's reality as more of a vast and infinite kind of process of grey... sort of, in a way of speaking, don't take that as an absolute either, just a metaphor. Take care!

Also, Buddhism while subverting self on any ultimate level, actually gives more credence to individuality on an actual level because mind streams are individual and beginningless.

Hi friends! I didn't read every post on this thread but, it is quite true that Buddhist cosmology and realization is different from Advaita Vedanta, Shaivism, or any of the Hindu forms of cosmology and realization. If you read Vasisthas Yoga, Lord Vasistha doesn't know how his friend remained after the last universe was destroyed. They both blame it on the mysterious will of Brahman. Even in Non-Dual Shaivism, the cause of creation is blamed on a supreme and independent entity with infinite will and infinite power. There is not total omniscience and no knowledge of the universe before this one. Buddhism has true omniscience. Buddhism see's everything as dependently originated throughout endless cycles from the formless realms to the form realms. There is no basis to anything. Realization in Buddhism is a realization dependent on understanding directly dependent origination and not on absorption into an infinite sat, chit, ananda. Rather Sat, Chit, Ananda are qualities of the realization of dependent origination but it's all dependent upon that, there is no independence and nothing to merge into. According to the Buddha, Hindu understanding is a mis-interpretation of spiritual experience. Nirguna Brahman is merely the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception and not to be taken as a basis for anything, but rather a state of focus, a kind of infinite non-conceptual concept, a subtle obscuration that if believed in as a TRUE SELF, one will simply absorb into that state of non-conceptual consciousness at the end of the universe and stay in that state for as long as the conditions of focus on that state applies. Afterwards though, one will fall into any one of the realms below in a state of ignorance and bewilderment. So, this formless state is not a true place of refuge. The Buddha said that if there was a universal essence to take refuge in, he would have taught that. The All is dependent origination and emptiness is not a state of absorption, but rather the realization of dependent origination. It is not a state found in meditation, it is a state of realizing dependent origination, that there is no inherent basis to anything, just an endless chain of causation. Emptiness is not the state of meditation on the mahashunya or any altered state of consciousness. It's an intuitive realization of non-inherency, no-self anywhere. Of course in the Parinirvana sutra they state that the Buddha has found his true Self, but that's not talking about an essence, but rather talking about having realized totally and fully the dependent nature of things, thus has found his true purpose as a helper of those that still suffer in the cycling between formless and form states. This is why Nagarjuna said that other paths may lead to the edge of Samsara, but only the Dharma of Shakyamuni leads beyond Samsara totally. I grew up my entire life Hindu, living in Ashrams and experiencing deep states of meditation, having kundalini awakening, etc. But, I met a Dzogchen master and was shown a deeper state of realization that was very deeply intuitive and more integrated in a way that Hindu texts don't even discuss, and I've read most all of them. Chanted many of them in Sanskrit daily. I can say from having read both Hindu and Buddhist Cosmologies that Buddhist Cosmology is different, not just in semantics, but in actual point of realization and how the cycling works. Buddhism is a non-substantial non-dualism, while Hinduism or Monism is a substantialist non-duality, where we are of one substance and all individual expressions of this one substance cycling in expression and re-absorptions. Buddhism says that we are all individually endless mind streams that are dependently originated and without any self essence, but interconnected in the sense of dependent origination. We are not of one substance though, we are just connected. I don't expect all those adherents of Advaita Vedanta to just drop their path and say, OH! It's all really about dependent origination. It's very difficult to change spiritual traditions, I know... it's a very emotional and psychologically wrenching experience. It took years of having realizations and going through deep forms of pain and attachment to finally be able to say... Yes, Buddhism is subtler.