Vajrahridaya

This is called, "Dharmakaya", or "Tathagatagarbha" in Buddhism. In Dzogchen, it's called, "Samantabhadra". Which is basically the recognition that makes the state of mind, "all good" with everything, and not in that sense where one is just passive or dismissive, but rather just seeing the pattern of the creative matrix in a way that self liberates one in every moment. Anyway... yes, we see this as well. It's also called, "spanda" in Sanskrit, meaning, "creative pulsation." But, in Buddhism, we don't describe this as having a starting point of primal origin, or cosmic beginning, not even with the big bang. It's just a beginningless cycling from higher vibration to lower density, to higher vibration to lower density, described in much the way you just did, with lots of nuance having to do with a multi-dimensional description of the cosmos. In Buddhism it's of course impersonal, yet the source of all persons, the Vedantin equivalent would be Brahman, except that Brahman has a will of it's own and truly self exists beyond an us, while in Buddhism one can't even say that the sum of everything equals an ultimate Self existence, but it's rather all just the play of the energy of sentient beings. Anyway, interesting post.

Oh Lordy! Please, lets not go down that road again. The realization of emptiness equals the fullness of being!

Well, hopefully not anymore!

Well, dependent origination is emptiness, they are synonyms, which is why it's not merely a mechanical description of cause and effect, it's a subtler intuitive realization. The Buddha himself didn't realize the internal meaning of dependent origination/emptiness until he went through absolutely every stage, no, mastered every single stage of meditative absorption. So, it's not something that is merely some intellectual musing. He's pointing to a far deeper level of direct cognition or grokking even when he conceptually elaborates upon this. As in, for me, the Tao as described by Lau Tzu, means the same thing internally, that dependent origination/emptiness does.

That's an interesting description. It's like once you've already committed to jumping on the escalator, it's just staying on, or remaining aware and in tune with the steps that naturally flow upward.

Marblehead, I was hoping you'd read this. YAY!!

Yes, I was thinking that as I wrote the above. Alas, no matter how instantaneous master paths/traditions claim to be, it's still a process to get to that endless instant.

Truly fascinating!

Obviously, over the years of being here and listening, my interpretation of Lau Tzu's explanation of the Tao meaning "The way of things, nothing, all beings" has changed, from thinking it was pointing to an ultimate reified identity of things, instead to an ever evolving (which includes devolving) process that is all inclusive. Which makes it more akin, internally to me, reflective of my understanding of what the Buddha taught as Buddhadharma. YAY!!

Exactly!! Beyond this fighting crap. Eh...

Well... , the simple is as equally empty and interdependently arisen as the complex. So to speak at least.

The Buddha explained that the sensation of oneness is actually just the mind expanding due to experiencing emptiness, but mistaking the sense of expanded mind, penetrating everything as an excuse that all things are actually one substance, when in fact, all things are just equally empty, not one substance. Which is why the Buddha denied that all things are one. Just like he denied that all things are a single Self or a single God. There are jokes in the West about Buddha going to a hot dog stand and saying, "make me one with everything." But, that's actually not the goal. I've experienced this many times, and I used to go around saying, "When you feel it you will know." But, then I studied what the Buddha taught and gave it a chance, and realized through direct experience beyond my mistaken assumption of experience... that I was fooling myself through the tendency for "self" clinging merely expanding past the individual sense of self into a sense of self equals all-ness, but it's really just due to the fact of emptiness that this is a possible experience. Though all things are not one, they are merely connected due to the fact of emptiness and inter-dependency. This is why the Buddha did not support the, "all is one" cosmology as quoted by me earlier in this thread. EDITED: For clarity

Yup.

Sure, I'll buy that for a dollar.

Interesting, yes Vajrayana systems utilize anywhere from 3 to 12 chakras dependent upon the particular "sadhana" or practice. I understand, this is for you intuitive as well as from what you have read. I have no problem with that. I don't know all that much about Egyptian systems. But yea, the Indian systems in various texts say that one can even think within a spectrum of infinite chakras. The different numbers are just for the sake of mental alignment and focus for particular outcomes. The "Kunjed Gyalpo" a major Dzogchen Semsde text talks about the non-necessity of creating a dogma around numbers and stages, yet at the same time states that one shouldn't make a dogma about that idea of thinking that the systems aren't necessary either. It's really about neither acceptance nor rejection, but knowing what is necessary in the moment for mental alignment and body practices without creating a mental dogma about any of it. There are lots of pictures from long ago of there being plenty more chakras than 7, and also pictures showing less all within Vajrayana Tantric Buddhism. Even Swami Muktananda, a famous Hindu Shaivite Yogi said that there are "so many chakras in the head", but he said that one doesn't need to really elaborate on that as they open naturally when doing the 8 chakra practice, even though he mostly focused on 7 in his teachings, he also talks about the Hridaya chakra in the physical heart which opens once the sahasarara is opened, the energy goes down and centers in the chakra in the heart after all the regular 7 points and all the head chakras open up it goes down to center the body energy with the higher energies, or something to that effect. That was his experience anyway and it's what the Kaula or Trika (Kashmir Shaivite) traditions talked about too. So... eh, practice and find out! Dzogchen and Vajrayana in Buddhism talks about this as well.

All very interesting Simple Jack. Thanks for sharing!

It is all quite interesting. But, I'm more interested in living lineage instead of assumptions and possible re-interpretation of ancient symbols based upon a projection of a conditioned ideal. Then again, I don't know, everything this person writes... could be correct? http://www.patriciadaywilliams.com/chakrasystem.pdf It's an interesting read.

Plenty of things, powers, psychic, physical, etc., having nothing to do with liberation from the cycle of unconscious rebirth or freedom from Samsara as defined in the Indian traditions. How do we know about the chakras they were working with? I'm ignorant about that. What I find online is just new agers meshing Egyptian lore with Indian philosophy. The term Chakra is a sanskrit word meaning wheel, originally having nothing to do with spirituality. It's a word pertaining to any sort of wheel, originally speaking. I've been introduced to Aleister Crowley's stuff, and all his stuff about Egyptian spirituality just talks like a re-interpretation based upon having studied some Indian Tantra? Kundalini is a sanskrit term meaning, "coiled", and that's it. Though again, I don't know... you could know more on this about the Egyptian side of things. But, I've come across many current books and these new age formulas discussing Egyptian myth which read more like a re-interpretation rather than original Egyptian intention. What is the Egyptian term for the spiritual centers in the physical system? What's the source for this term and this idea that they have a codified system for these centers like they do in India? I looked online and supposedly they work with a 13 point system according to "William Henry?" Where is the proof that they even talked about the kundalini phenomena like the Indians do? I'm not saying that they didn't experience some things, but where are the texts and the lineages that talk about such things with as much clarity as to come up with such a hypothesis in comparing ancient Egyptian spirituality with the Indian systems? I'm just curious. Who's interpreting the writing on the walls?

Just as food for thought, the Buddha taught: Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Yes, all interesting. But, I wonder how much is just a re-interpretation based upon what we know of Indian internal alchemy traditions? I for one, do not know, or remember directly. (*Remember, as in I have memories of intimate connection with ancient Egypt.)

Oh yeah, that's right, I did see this and read through it. Ok, thank you.

Hi Forest.o.e., I feel that there are levels to knowing, stages of personal graduation that should not so much be compared with other people, unless you have a guide, or a teacher that you can reflect your knowing off of. But, I do get the gist of what you mean in this instance. Yet, what or who is to measure what is great and what is not, or what is greater than what? Sure, within the yogic traditions, it means being wise over being ignorant, having direct insight into the nature of everything rather than limited cognition. But, I think different traditions define differently what constitutes greater insight and what does not, at least on a dualistic level of Buddha/enlightened being versus lets say Hitler.

You'd really enjoy Vasisthas Yoga then. Seriously, take a look. It was an incredibly mind opening work for me through my process as an Atma Vicharian, in the Vedantin and Shaivite Sampradayas of my past study and practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Vasistha I recommend the unabridged version by Swami Venkatesananda. http://www.amazon.com/Vasisthas-Yoga-Venkatesananda/dp/0791413640/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308352259&sr=8-1 It's quite a large book, even in this version which is abridged as compared to the original sanskrit. I'm into dependent origination/emptiness now, so I don't personally agree with every single nuance in the book. But, it's a good book for Atman Vicharians, actually considered one of the best books for Atma Vicharians, and I'm not the only one to think this.