Vajrahridaya

Anyway... no, I don't think All Prophets are Buddhas. All prophets are inspiring! Maybe enlightened to a certain degree! But, Buddhas? No.

It becomes clear when one has both scholarship and experience in the Buddhadharma. The Buddha was very clear about what constitutes a Buddha, as well as what they teach, he actually delineated a description out of compassion for us sentient beings. Now, Bodhisattvas on the other hand... that is also a very respectable degree of realization and they can populate any number of traditions for the sake of sentient beings. But, even to be a Bodhisattva one must have realization of emptiness, and most traditions do not have that in their main texts, but some mystics of theistic traditions seem to go that far, including some Christian, and Sufi Mystics, but that doesn't make them a Buddha, but a Bodhisattva. Being a Buddha is very specific and it's very rare, far more rare than being a Bodhisattva, even a high level Bodhisattva. It's clear you haven't studied or practiced much Buddhism though, so it's fine that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what it is to be a Buddha as far as how it's defined in Buddhism. So, your statements concerning this is somewhat null and void, simply based upon ignorance. Just like I wouldn't know much of what it is to be a Taoist Immortal, though I've learned a bit from being on here. I do not pretend to know enough to talk about what it is to be a Taoist Immortal. No biggie. The Dalai Lama is a political figure and will be politically correct during public or to be publicized interviews. As the vast majority of people who hear of him or know of him will not sit down and actually study his teachings. But, if you took the time to read some of his more nuanced writings, he obviously considers Buddhism superior, as the Buddha himself did, and the Dalai Lama quotes from many historical Buddhas along those lines. The Dalai Lama is right though, Buddhism obviously is something that you have to be ready for, and if you're not ready for it, whatever brings you closer to your concept of goodness is the best for that particular individual. Basically this is what he thinks of the God concept, as I've read plenty of what the Dalai Lama actually thinks about Theism when he's not being politically correct. He has stated that Brahma (Creator God) paths, lead to higher rebirth, higher capacity, and higher states of goodness, but not complete Buddhahood though they can lead to the capacity to understand Buddhadharma eventually. This is quoted from what the Buddha stated and what other Buddhas have said since Shakyamuni. So, either they are wrong, as you'd like to think they are, or they are right. I took a time out from my universalist theistic ideas some years ago and gave it a chance, I saw directly what the Buddha was talking about and conceded to his arguments, that indeed, most paths are limited in how high they can take you. This was very humbling. I may be attached to Buddhism, which I'm very happy to be so. But, you are attached to your "God" concept, which I know you are happy to be so at this time. So, whatever. I think you're view is wrong, and you think mine is wrong. Que sera, sera. Just continue evolving bro!! I promise I'll do the same. One thing about being a Buddha though, is that a Buddha is not merely "human"... this is just the appearance due to karmic influence. A Buddha has internally transcended such limitations by transcending body consciousness and this transcendence can appear before a ready disciple, otherwise a Buddha will just appear as limited and bound as everyone else due to karmic influence. Of course, Hindu's and other mystics can do this as well, but they generally don't get past the God concept, which again, can be a very deep one indeed. What I've seen plenty of people do, who think they are enlightened or whatever, is limit great beings by the limits of their own limited level of mystical experience, saying, "Oh, it's not possible because I haven't experienced it" and they may not say this consciously, but this limitation does have a tendency to limit a persons perception of possibility. Tell me, what is a human Aaron? Is your perception of being a human the same as another? Anyway... have a great day.

The difference between a Samsarin and a Buddha. Just because you haven't experienced being a Buddha as of yet, doesn't mean you won't. Just stating, "I can't accept" is revealing a clinging to self, clinging to pride of knowledge or pride of experience, as limited as both might be thus far, is unwise.

Yes, I meant, do you accept that all phenomena, including your own mind, is impermanent and always empty? As in, do you except that all conditioned arisings are permanently empty?

A Buddha never wavers from the awareness of the permanently empty nature of awareness and phenomena. This is what defines a Buddha, which you are not as of yet. A Buddha is not subject to the perception of emptiness, this is a dualistic approach and a Buddha is free from duality, as well as free from his/her own mind and free from his or her own self. Emptiness is not merely a concept, it's an insight that has experiential ramifications.

Do you accept that impermanence is permanently empty?

Right, for Buddhism, the ultimate truth is not a self existent, but rather an ultimate insight into the nature of inter-relative phenomena being empty of inherent existence, even while existing. This is what liberates one from activity, even while acting. Excellent quotes by the way, thanks for that bit from the Indian scholar!

I agree.

Right ok... so you see, Buddhahood is freedom from them as being real and raw, they are experienced more like bubbles, or foam.

Samsara is also the cycling of a persons selfish psychological habit patterns and the fruits of their activities through unconscious rebirths add infinitum. Buddhahood in the Mahayana is defined as the conscious transformation of selfish psychological habit patterns into selfless patterns of conscious offering, or selfless service to all sentient beings. You do not unconsciously cycle into birth after birth predicated upon the fruition of ones personal history of selfish psychological patterns and their actions anymore. A Buddha does not see suffering as really suffering though, only relatively so, there is no ultimate suffering, as everything arises interdependently and is empty. Seeing emptiness directly frees one from the fruition of inter-dependent arisings, even while they occur. This freedom is a constant state of bliss, as described in the Pali Suttas. Buddhahood is defined as a permanent freedom from psychological suffering, since the very inception of Buddhas teachings. This has nothing to do with craving for a permanent soul or self nature. This has everything to do with understanding dependent origination and emptiness on a level that is not merely conceptual.

Clinging to Buddha mind as a concept, but Buddha mind by definition is free from concept. So, sadness arises, the Buddha sees it as it is, part of the dynamic play of interdependence, and sees it as empty as well, all at once, on a level subtler than concept. Thus, the state of sadness which arises dependent upon causes and conditions self liberates into the state of bliss of liberation, which arises dependent upon seeing emptiness directly, which is what ultimate Bodhichitta is. Study your mind more deeply and you'll have glimpses of this experience, a blissful compassion beyond emotions, for yourself and all other beings, this is ultimate bodhichitta as opposed to relative boddhichitta.

A Buddha is absolutely free from psychological suffering, even during mourning, a Buddhas state of crying is suffused with the bliss of liberation, even while showing anger towards someone who is in need of course correction, a Buddhas state is suffused with the bliss of liberation. A Buddha is defined by the fact that they are always psychology free, even from the dynamic play of emotional display. The state of liberation of a Buddha is not a constant emotional state, it's much subtler than this. It's not a state of mind, not like you understand it. This is why sometimes in Dzogchen, they say "Rigpa" is beyond mind. When they say, enlightenment is ordinary mind, they don't mean your ordinary mind as it is right now as a Samsarin.

The state of mind of a Buddha is beyond all that, while embracing that at the same time. Samsara is Nirvana. Your understanding of emptiness is still lost in relativity. You don't understand the Heart Sutra. I'm just saying, that is my opinion, I think it's an objective opinion based upon your subjective interpretations that you've revealed here. I don't "crave" a permanent state of freedom. I see it, it already is, as all things are self liberated upon arising. I just don't fully realize it yet. You are having a hard time not reading into I and Xabir's words. This has nothing to do with our words, they are innocent, it has everything to do with your conditioned vision of what we are saying. You are not understanding objectively. Just like you don't understand Nagarjunas two truths, or what it means to be a Buddha. This is very clear. You need some help. It's ok... I do too. A Buddha is absolutely free from psychological suffering, even during mourning, a Buddhas state of crying is suffused with the bliss of liberation, even while showing anger towards someone who is in need of course correction, a Buddhas state is suffused with the bliss of liberation. A Buddha is defined by the fact that they are always psychology free, even from the dynamic play of emotional display. The state of liberation of a Buddha is not a constant emotional state, it's much subtler than this.

A Buddhas perception of emptiness is unchanging, due to the fact that perception itself is unchangingly empty, always. This is the very insight that defines Buddhahood. This is why you want to be a Buddha, not because it is an impermanent state of being, like the pleasures of Samsara. It is a constant state of freedom from Samsara, this is why Buddhahood is so attractive when one realizes directly that this is possible.

It is tathagathagarbha (buddhanature), arisen in every moment, constantly arisen upon the constant fact of emptiness. Your view of emptiness is stuck in the relative. Question: What is the difference between relative and absolute bodhicitta? Garchen Rinpoche Answers: Relative bodhicitta is based on the understanding of cause and effect and karma. Absolute bodhicitta is based on seeing the nature of afflictive emotions. When you see their nature is emptiness, that is absolute bodhicitta. Then you are beyond these concepts. Cause, effect and karma do not affect absolute bodhicitta because absolute bodhicitta is beyond concept. But until you have realized absolute bodhicitta, you must believe in cause, effect, and karma. Until then you should practice virtuous actions. The unity of absolute and relative bodhicitta will happen when you understand emptiness as the nature of the mind. At this time you will develop great compassion for those who have not seen it. So at that point relative and absolute bodhicitta unite.

The mind has never changed from being empty, regardless of my awareness of it or not. Just like the Buddhas first utterance after enlightenment, "The mind and it's manifestations are pure, unborn, and free since beginningless time." Buddhahood is defined by the constant awareness of the empty nature of everything.

You don't understand the Heart Sutra, or the Buddhas teaching yet. Please seek a living teacher. You have some experiences, but... you need some good mind pointing. Buddhahood is the permanent intuitive awareness of emptiness without obscuration. This has nothing to do with a permanent independent soul.

Do you realize that all things are always empty? Constantly? Permanently? Everything is always empty, even emptiness is empty, always! What you're not understanding is that the state of Buddhahood is a permanent insight, arisen dependent upon the very fact that in every moment, everything is and always has been, and will always be empty of inherent existence. This is a permanent insight, so it transcends the mind, as the mind does not inherently exist either. You are having a hard time letting go of the relative view of emptiness. TCO, I want you to read this very slowly, and with care. I hope that it leaves an indelible impression on your mind of why Buddhahood is to be sought after. From The Heart Sutra: "Sariputra, whatever son or daughter of the lineage wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom should look perfectly like this: subsequently looking perfectly and correctly at the emptiness of inherent existence of the five aggregates also. Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form also is not other than emptiness. Likewise, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness are empty. Shariputra, like this, all phenomena are merely empty, having no characteristics. They are not produced and do not cease. They have no defilement and no separation from defilement. They have no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compostional factors, no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no tactile object, no phenomenon. There is no eye element and so forth, upto no mind element, and also upto no element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance and no exhaustion of ignorance, and so forth, upto no ageing and death and no exhaustion of ageing and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation or path; no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, because there is no attainment, all Bodhisattvas rely on and abide in the perfection of wisdom; their minds have no obstructions and no fear. Passing utterly beyond perversity, they attain the final state beyond sorrow. Also, all the Buddhas who perfectly reside in the three times, relying upon the perfection of wisdom, become manifest and complete Buddhas in the state of unsurpassed, perfect and complete enlightenment."

I'm not a Buddha. Why do you cling to the relative view of emptiness? You are still not understanding how ultimately, everything is always empty of inherent existence, there is no relativity, there is no dependent origination, (read Heart Sutra) thus this intuitive insight is permanent for those who have seen right through themselves to the experiential awareness of emptiness on every personal level. They've emptied their personal cycle of dependent origination, on the deepest intuitive level of their own psyche. Buddhahood is a permanent insight beyond the mind, of the mind that has this insight. You really should study more to at least have this understanding intellectually. I have glimpsed this enough to understand how Buddhahood is not at all a wavering state of insight, which is what makes it a worthy goal for anyone. I have also read enough teachings by Buddhas from history to know that this is so. Having a permanent state of insight does not necessitate a self abiding soul. Tell me, are you aware that you are you from morning to night, through dream and waking? One may have momentary insights that help transcend the self bondage, but none the less, you always know that it's you transcending yourself, or of you being angry, being loving, being sad, being lonely, whatever. This is a permanent awareness that you have, even when you die, you'll know that it's you that is dying. It's you that is reading this. You will also know when you are a Buddha, and you will always be a Buddha once you realize this. This is what the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra means when it talks about atman. It's the constant realization of the Dharmakaya (which basically just means shunyata).

TCO, Are you asking whether or not the state of Buddhahood is a permanent insight into the nature of things, or a wavering state of insight where one might be insightful one moment, but not the next moment?

What is the fruit of Muhammads teaching and communion with God as compared to great beings like the Buddha? I think it's dangerous to put them all into a pot and say they came to the same realization. Semantics is very important in my opinion as it's like weeding out your garden, sometimes a little annoying, but the end result is far more beautiful. Now, you do have Sufi's, but these guys are more influenced by a Buddhist influenced Hinduisms take on Islam, and even Kabbalah (A great mystical tradition) as well. I'm not saying that Muhammed was "all wrong." But, I don't think he was as right as other great beings, like the Buddha for instance I feel went far deeper in his meditation than Muhammed and came to a much subtler and far more profoundly clear realization as evidenced by his teaching and the fruit of his teaching.

Yes, this is true, but... upon clarity, there is a difference between a high minded person, with great love and purity of conduct, and a Buddha, even though a Buddha would have that as well. It depends on what you want, just some virtue and happiness in this lifetime, and a long life in a heavenly abode after, or true liberation from unconscious recycling (Samsara)? Samsara is a concept, which historically speaking, finds it's most clear description through the avenue of the Buddhadharma. Many who are considered "enlightened" in other traditions, even Saints, are not necessarily Buddhas. Buddhahood is not merely defined by a great sense of virtue and humanitarian state of mind, even though that is a big part of it. Anyway... everyone has their capacity. Whatever evolves that person the best, right now, is the best for that person, right now. But, the truth is in the details, which reflect the fruit of a particular mystics level of realization, as there are levels, practically speaking and relatively speaking. Though lets say, St. Francis of Assisi, a very great, great being indeed, I don't feel reached as deeply a state of insight into the nature of things as Padmasambhava, and didn't leave nearly as profound of a teaching. But, he did leave great inspirations and was himself a great inspiration of humanitarianism. He plays his positive role in the advancement of human decency. But, I don't think you can put him in the same bowl as Padmasambhava and say it's the same "enlightenment." It's not... Though you can mix them up and have a nice flavored stew that will only be very healthy upon digestion. I'd like to say now for the record that I've studied both of these examples with great fervor and can quote from both extensively.

Yes, as the Dalai Lama can also be quoted in various texts as arguing semantics about the difference between a belief in "God" and the inner meaning of "Dependent Origination." How one leads to a more conscious state of insight where one can maintain conscious virtue for much longer, while the other cosmological view is not reflective of this realized potential. None the less, the Dalai Lama knows that people are very attached to their God concepts, and as long as it works to lead people deeper, for a time being, it is a useful raft for plenty and it does lead very deep indeed. The God concept, if utilized with insight and skill can lead to the very edge of Samsaric clinging, leading to all the worldly powers of virtue, such as compassion and humanitarianism. But, it will not liberate a person from unconscious recycling or reveal the ability to maintain a conscious mind stream able to transcend cosmic death, which will allow you to be consciously virtuous endlessly. So, one does lead to a more prolonged state of virtue while the other still reflects being trapped in Samsara, unless one uses it entirely as a metaphor. With that said, God bless!! As in, may all your endless spiritual connections since beginningless time bring about positive fruition right now! See, for me it's a metaphor, not to be taken literally. GOD BLESS!!!

Indeed!