Vajrahridaya

I thought my name made my path obvious? Well, anyway... I practice Vajrayana. This might change the way you read my post. In Vajrayana there are many levels to Enlightenment, the glimpse, the integration, the full blown grounded realization of light hearted awareness. Different forms of Buddhism present these levels of enlightenment in different ways. I practice Dzogchen specifically. I wouldn't mind coming to the realization of the "body of light" or "jalus" known as the "rainbow body" at the time of my departure. I wish you well on your journey.

Yes! We are all connected and the fact that everything is connected is the basis for the arising of individual consciousness'. It is the particular way the elements combine which grants the arising of consciousness in us. Through awareness of the inter-dependent nature of your consciousness, you are self liberated.

I meant to say it's the individual that leads his/her self to liberation, ultimately speaking. It's just tons easier with the right influence.

I personally feel that it is an individual that leads them-self to liberation, but how they do it, and to what degree of speed depends upon the external conditions prevalent around that person, or what that person happens to find them-self around through their own efforts? It's definitely easier in certain places and times to attain Buddhahood, simply due to influence. I mean, if you want to be a Buddha, you're going to want to be influenced by Buddhas. But, at the same time, not all traditions are even interested in Buddhahood. Some just want some sort of enlightenment as defined differently by different traditions, or elongation of their time in the body is considered an enlightened venture, or they want personal power and this is considered enlightening, etc. So, one has to ask oneself what they themselves really wants, and why before choosing the particular path they trod upon to that end. Ultimately the answers are within yourself, but again, it's true that certain environments are better for inner cultivation than others. This can change dependent upon a persons level of progression as well. Some may only need a monastery for a short period of time before it becomes a hindrance. Some need it their entire life and it's not a hindrance. Others need to be in the Urban life in order to integrate what they've learned in a monastery with regular people. Some monks need to drop their robes and get naked with a chick in order to go deeper within themselves or vice versa... My 2 cents.

Well, Buddhism... from the Pali Suttas on, goes into formless realities, non-conceptual relativity. Which is hard to reference without formless experience in meditation. I respect your passion for finding... I've also studied the Rosicrucians... Due to my depth of experience and study in Buddhism, I can tell you... it ain't that deep. But.. have your path of study, and embrace it. The Rosicrucian belief is more of a substantial top down metaphysics stemming from a one to many ideation of reality... it's particulars are interesting though.

Ok, so let go of a unified ego, a supreme I of all then... a grand ego that is everything? Unified field theory doesn't have to prove that all things are one intelligence, but alayvijnana explains it well enough. It's just collective unconscious manifesting through collective consciousness' of various vibrations of endless dimensional activity.

You should study more of it before creating a solid opinion. That would be the more enlightened thing to do. I spent years reading 200 or more pages a day while meditating on what I read when I wasn't reading of the many different mystical traditions and new scientific findings of the planet. Your conclusions seem to have to base themselves on some sort of clinging to inherent existence, thus you don't see the deep meaning of relativity. (imho) I humbly disagree with you.

Oh sure... plenty of more clear Buddhists out there... Buddhas, bodhisattvas... etc. As in... not self standing... as in, not self same always. Read it, it's all Buddhist and science. That's the only spirituality that the Dalai Lama defines himself or undefines himself by. Read more, the Buddha said in the Pali Suttas, that there is neither an inherent personal self, nor is there a permanent universal Self. Read some Madhyamaka then? I didn't understand Buddhism very deeply before psychic transmission from a Buddhist master. No, that's empty of inherent existence too.

Actually Einstein talked about god early on, then he learned about Buddhism. There are plenty of Buddhist physicists. View and experience are inter-dependent, and equally empty.

I agree for the most part, even though there are certain quantum physicists who have theories that are in line with Buddhist thought. Like for instance... and the theories of Michio Kaku, one of the top physicists on the planet.

Ok, I've never heard this... obviously a Western invention. This is fine to me though and has merit.

Science seems to more and more prove Buddhism these days. That's what I've found... Have you read the Holographic Universe by Talbot? I don't know... it seems that we have different ideas of what is going on in science. I've heard of this search for the god particle. But, because of the fact of infinite regress, even if one says... "oh, I found it" this experience will be arisen dependent upon an endless assortment of conditions which the scientist will be blind to. Subjective. You should re-read your own statements, just for clarification. You've just stated what dependent origination means. The inter-dependent self fulfilling it's self prophesies empty of inherent existence, arisen merely dependent upon an endless assortment of causes and conditions. There is no paradox in dependent origination. Sure have... which is what took me to Buddhism. Such "god" fantasies don't hold weight. Even Einstein thought Buddhism was the best religion on the planet. "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity." or, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Your attachment to this "god" thing as logical is showing and blocking your ability to understand Buddhism. But yes... if you can't understand Buddhism without god, you won't understand Buddhism. It is deeply logical though. I probably am just not the right person to convey it to you as you already have so many mental blocks against anything I say. No... you're definitely not understanding what emptiness means. it merely means malleability, as in, no static being. If you want to call dharmakaya, divine intelligence, you can, but then you'd be missing the point of emptiness as you are subscribing a self to chaotic order defined by the infinite mass that is us. I think you're not seeing between the words I'm using... Read... The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama Who is also atheist by the way. Your opinion is subjective and disagreed upon by plenty, so obviously I can't get the nuances of explanation right for your particular set of conditionings... Oh well? What can I do? Just learn from it. You make opinions about something you've never studied? How presumptive... and unenlightened. Though, without right view, you will be just as conditioned by meditative experiences as you are by life experience through your senses. So be it... you don't have the openness to study even the 1st of the noble truths of the Buddha. Only if you consider the material world material. Certainly you know that there are those that eat without food, walk through walls, fly without wings... etc. Only those open enough karmically to experience such things directly would be the witness of course. Our individual reality originates dependent upon such a vast beginningless reservoir of karma... it's like infinite limitations. Until you truly see their inter-dependency and emptiness of course.

Sure.. this is a board though... no one has to read anything... I'm talking to readers more than her... and only readers who read from the perspective that'll help them

I've heard this perspective, and it's true... But there's deeper. Thanks for relating this though!

You can consider your own attachment to your self created perspective a religion. Dogma goes deep, and it's personal. By your reactions, it's obvious you aren't free from religion or yourself.

Forever is self transcending by nature... so you're that locked into your ideas of self to apply it to an endless amount of time?

Wow...

They have to do with it, but they transcend it as well.

Thanks for your heart felt input... it's contemplative.

Who's talking about death? Who brought that up? That's not what self transcendence means. I'll stick around. You're obviously not fine with where you are at... otherwise you wouldn't be so externally sensitive and reactive.

Disappear? It's a psychological thing, not physiological. Even in the Body of Light or Rainbow Body/Jalus... you only disappear to other people into another dimension of existence, so you don't really disappear, not to yourself. p.s. Go To Hell? Wow... :lol: Only to get people out of it...

I agree... We call it "prajna" in Vajrayana. The energy of wisdom.

You take the idea of self transcendence too darn literally... seriously. This is your main problem with "emptiness," a misunderstanding. There is no disappearing into the void, there is just freedom from your own personal "BS." EVERYTHING operates from the void already... we as humans just have the power to realize that. :lol: