Vajrahridaya

I agree, even though the mystics who seem to be more influenced by meditative tradition, seem to just ignore the dogma or reframe it in a way that internalizes the violence. Like the concept of Jihad in Islam for mystics is turned into a war on ones inner demons. Many Sufi traditions are Buddhist/Hindu influenced as well, to a degree that they are almost unrecognizable other than in language from the ideas one finds in mystic Hinduism, including kundalini and chakras. It's the same with the mystic Christian paths. But, I think one can just almost equate this with mysticism period. It's just that certain religious traditions follow more closely the realization of the mystic from the outset, like some Shamanistic traditions, as well as Buddhism and Taoism and some forms of Hinduism. Other religions like the Abrahamic religions, the concepts have to be reframed, or really turned on their back and re-wired into metaphorical allegories and not be taken literally at all in order for one to see them in the light of mystical realization.

It's not that rare for yogi's who have given themselves over to the practice with total focus. I know plenty who experience this, including myself. But, I would only call it the fulfillment of existence if I were setting up the experience as an alpha and omega, as I used to do. But, I have found through deep churning in the unconscious, making it conscious, and through influence of Buddha lineage leanings from lifetimes, I have found that there is a deeper insight into the nature of this experience that trumps the subjective, monist idealization of this experience.

The mystics of all traditions may be very similar at their core, or at the basis, but there is something unique about Buddha lineage perspective on the core experience which leads one not to be re-absorbed at the end of a cosmic aeon. As if one translates the core experience as an ultimate self existence, and this is not merely conceptual, the awareness of unconditional love and compassion does not last past the end of this universal cycle. Most people just think within the span of a single life, what makes me happy and see joy and compassion in this life? When one starts having experiences that reveal beyond this life, even into seeing many cycles of personalized existence, you want a realization that will allow you to stay conscious even after the cycles go through the process of dissolving into the singularity at the end of a cosmic aeon. You will not want to merge with the Lord of all that births and devours everything. Because just as you are here now, that time will come as well, as clearly and as visceral as now appears to be. On Earth, Buddhist cosmology explains this phenomena and sets up contemplations that work towards this realization and no other tradition does, so it seems. Other than possibly Taoism? This probably won't make any sense to many people here. I'll just get roasted again, but for those that it does? Or for those that this plants a seed of contemplation in? Good. Because Buddhism is not just about merging with emptiness/fullness and the light, that's just the start of the path of the Bodhisattva, which many traditions lead to. It's not just about the heart mind experience either. But Buddhas explain that there are still subtle obscurations, even if conflicting emotions and concepts have been eradicated.

The language symbols are attempts at manifesting reflections of experience or understandings of experience for the sake of communicating and ideally manifesting the same understanding in someone else.

hmmm. Ok. Manifesting some particular meaning there.

Another manifested symbol presenting the concept of Yin/Yang through a contemporary medium of expression/manifestation... as an emoticon!

If the examples as manifested by the cosmos through me as one of it's manifestations aren't good enough... I'll manifest some more.

Yes, your body fields impressions through the senses that are interpreted through the apparatus of perception, which is a conditioned phenomena without self. You are a bundle of conditions determined by DNA and genetics as well as environment as previous experience and the interpretation of that experience as fielded through the body. If your energy has given more time towards pursuing the impulses of your 5 senses over contemplation of there nature, you are more likely to be at the mercy of the impressions arising through your bodies 5 gross senses. Yogi's aren't as controlled by their body. They are more like the driver of a carriage (mind) that has control over the 5 horses pulling it (senses).

Samskaras (sanskrit word) are impressions in the mind from ones history of experience and interpretation, based upon ones experience and interpretation add infinitum, no beginning, no starting point to blame for any of it. So, mind is influenced by it's environment, both outer and inner which are inter-dependent. That entire history of influence has manifested this particular set of words to function as communication for the sake of clarifying the meaning of manifestation. We are all the manifestations of the cosmos, as parts of the cosmos.

163, and it's a good enough source. LOL!! Man... people just really want to corner me and beat me up! I actually had the thought of replying with my own words, but why waste my time, it'll be deflected anyway. Someone not arguing with me will read that and might get some understanding from it though.

Mind uses the body to manifest thought into the 3 dimensional universe through language symbols.

The karma (activity) of a tree seed is to manifest as a tree. The karma of a chicken egg is to manifest as a chicken. The karma (activity) of a human being is multifarious, and we can manipulate our manifestation, or our activity with a wider sense of choice.

Once you're a stream enterer, your personal chaos starts becoming more ordered and it's easier to see where you are going. It's easier to see the connections between circumstances, thoughts, beings, etc.

No, my point is that they don't teach that there is only one Buddha per Dharma era. They are saying that Tai Situ Rinpoche is part of the mind stream of Maitraya, the next Samyakasambuddha after the Dharma ending age passes. Your statement does not encompass what they teach at all and leads to misunderstanding. In Buddhism, three types of Buddha are recognized. From Wikipedia: Samyaksambuddha (Pali: sammasambuddha), often simply referred to as Buddha, one who has attained samyaksambodhi. Pratyekabuddhas (Pali: paccekabuddha) Śrāvakabuddha (Pali: sāvakabuddha) The first two types of Buddha both achieve Nirvana through their own efforts, without a teacher to point out the Dharma. The term Savakabuddha does not occur in the Theravadin Pali Canon, but is mentioned in three Theravadin commentarial works, and refers to an enlightened disciple of the Buddha. Samyaksambuddha Samyaksambuddhas (Pali: sammasambuddha) gain Nirvana by their own efforts, and discover the Dhamma without having a teacher to point it out. They then lead others to enlightenment by teaching the Dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because a Samyaksambuddha does not depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a previous Samyaksambuddha, but instead discovers the path anew. The historical Buddha, Gautama Buddha, is considered a Samyaksambuddha. See also the list of 28 sammasambuddhas. Three variations can be distinguished in the way of achieving Samyaksambuddha-hood. With more wisdom (prajñādhika), with more effort (vīryādhika) or with more faith (śraddhādhika). Śākyamuni was a Prajñādhika (through more wisdom) Buddha. The next Buddha of this world, Maitreya (Pāli: Metteyya) will be a Vīryādhika (through more effort) Buddha. Pratyekabuddha Pratyekabuddhas (Pali: paccekabuddha) are similar to Samyaksambuddhas in that they attain Nirvāṇa without having a teacher. Unlike the Samyaksambuddha however, they do not teach the Dhamma that they have discovered. Thus, they also do not form a Saṅgha of disciples to carry on the teaching, since they do not teach in the first place. In some works they are referred to as "silent Buddhas". Several comparatively new Buddhist scriptures (of later origin; after the Buddha's demise, like the Jātakas), show Pratyekabuddhas giving teachings. A Paccekabuddha can sometimes teach and admonish people, but these admonitions are only in reference to good and proper conduct (Pali: abhisamācārikasikkhā), not concerning Nirvana. In some texts, they are described as 'one who understands the Dharma by his own efforts, but does not obtain omniscience nor mastery over the Fruits' (phalesu vasībhāvam). Śrāvakabuddha Śrāvaka (Skt.; Pali: sāvaka; means "hearer" or "follower") is a disciple of a Samyaksambuddha. An enlightened disciple is generally called an arahant (Noble One) or ariya-sāvaka (Noble Disciple). (These terms have slightly varied meanings but can both be used to describe the enlightened disciple.) The Theravadin commentary to the Udana uses the term sāvaka-buddha (Pali; Skt. śrāvakabuddha) to describe the enlightened disciple. Enlightened disciples attain Nirvana as do the two aforementioned types of Buddhas. After attaining enlightenment, disciples may also lead others to enlightenment. One can not become a disciple of a Buddha in a time or world where the teaching of the Buddha has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because this type of enlightenment is dependent on a tradition that stretches back to a Samyaksambuddha. A rarely used word, anubuddha, was a term used by the Buddha in the Khuddakapatha for those who become buddhas after being given instruction. In the Pali Canon itself, the first two are mentioned by the above names, while numerous examples of the third type occur, without that name. There is no mention of types of buddhas, though the word buddha does sometimes appear to be used in a broad sense covering all the above.

He's not equipped to do as such. Frothing at the mouth... ??? :lol: Shaking my head.

You do have your impenetrable force field up around your brain. It's as if nothing I said made any sense. I might as well be speaking Cantonese to an African tribe, or Swahili in B.C. China.

I know, you think I think too much, but actually all this is just elaboration upon a single moment of free from thought state of mind. Thoughts and this state of mind are also not in contradiction. It seems that I need to repeat and unpack endlessly for you guys, but it's like speaking to brick walls, so I suppose it's merely for those who are open and reading while watching. So, I'll let it be. Take care!

wow, such subjective nonsense. Amazing! Have fun with it guys. The B.S. in here would need a bulldozer. Oh yeah, but it's all my fault, right? :lol:

That's not what they teach, they are talking about wheel turning Buddhas, there are all kinds of different Buddhas that have different capacities. Simple you are padawan. Understudied young sir.

Your just not getting it. The proof of you not getting it is in the limits of your understanding arising dependent upon your internal interpretation of said statements, based upon your perception, as reflected by your expressions concerning such statements. So, what you're saying is that the Buddha is responsible for how every single being in the entire cosmos understands his teaching? That would not mean dependent origination, but independent origination. You are not seeing the subtlety of the 1st of the 8 fold path, "right view" that is dependent origination. Your misunderstanding or understanding what I've said arises dependent upon a whole assortment of personal conditions that are unlike any other personal conditions of perception, understanding and interpretation. In order for a Buddha to connect to many beings, there has to be karmic connections there. Just like not everyone get's the rigpa transmission from Norbu, some only get one of the jhanas or another, and some get nothing. Some peoples get heart chakra activation and others get ajna, and still others get the whole picture in an expansive paradigm transcending but incorporating chakras and jhanas and their inner and outer meanings.

No, it's not meaningless, as it finds meaning due to context. For me, the Buddha was an authority concerning all things spiritual and I mean all things spiritual. He was not an authority concerning all levels of communicating it, due to the fact that no single individual is omnipotent. Thus there is no single personal "god" of all. He was enough of an authority within his own language to adequately build a system by which other people could come to the same realization that he had. Meanwhile they themselves would not have to be stuck in some static ideation of his expressions due to the inner meaning of his expressions. Thus through their own personnel expression of the very same realization they could evolve the teachings he handed down in order to suit them for a different social and political environment, and possibly a more evolved social and political environment. Dependent origination man, there is no independent origination.

I am using a conventional meaning, just applying it to generally unthought of paradigms. Look, what I meant by my statement is as stated. So, you can either accept that you misunderstood me, or you can just misunderstand me. No, at this point it's just you not seeing through your own projection due to the limitations inherent in your personal field of meanings. I didn't say anything stupid, I just didn't unpack what I said enough for you to understand, thus making this argument really stupid as obviously you can't concede to the fact that you misunderstood me. I know what I meant when I said what I said, but you are assuming that your projection of what I meant is an absolute truth, thereby clinging to a self made value judgement. I'm saying that any term has to be contextualized by it's body of meaning it appears in. If you had actually read the post that I made my statement in, with an objective sense of reasoning, you would not have assumed the meaning you so did. You making it a quote on the bottom of every page of yours also made impacts on peoples minds concerning your sense of personal authority. It was a secret intention of your own, due to the fact of how high you think yourself to be! You think yourself to be higher than the Buddha, secretly, by example of your statements concerning the legacy he left behind. You are probably not even aware of these facts either, they are most likely quite subconscious of you. Only if he or she is actually a Buddha and not a charlatan, and it is up to you to decipher this, and you could be wrong either way concerning any individual based upon the authority of your own limited level of realization. The Buddha cannot be blamed for the fact that militant muslims and militant hindus did not understand his teaching and wish to stomp it out of existence. Including your somewhat militant view. Nope, not at all. You are once again deciphering from your own personal field of meanings and projecting onto my statements something other than I intended, based upon the the fact that you have erroneously authorized yourself to do so.

On your own authority then. Just as your brain signals authorize your bodies movement, but what authorizes the conditions of your brains signals?

Take your own advice please. Thanks. All my knowledge and pov's are dependently originated and empty of inherent existence. There is no transcendent self standing being to take refuge in. The Buddha said that if there was, he would teach one to take refuge in "that" but there isn't, so he didn't teach that. I wish I could remember the exact scripture and quote, but I'm not good at that.

Actually, it wasn't written down because things were generally oral at that time.