Vajrahridaya

Yes, the Buddha taught with clarity and repetition for 40 years (from 40 to 80 years old) the philosophy, the methods and the conclusions that all Buddhists practice with variances dependent upon the individual capacity of the listener. Which is quite unique for any of the religions fire starters. That the religion of Buddhism is actually based directly on what the Buddha taught rather than assuming he meant this or that, like we find with Christianity for instance. Even though there were most definitely some really great Christians, like Meister Eckhart and St. Francis of Assisi, etc. But, even as profound as their teachings were, they still in my opinion don't hold a candle to the level of clarity that the Buddha and subsequent Buddhas taught. As the Buddha taught some really clear internal methods, not just sayings. Most of the methods of the Christian mystics are quite extreme in my opinion, like self whipping and fasting for days and days in order to have a vision of their deity... etc. All things the Buddha did during the start of his journey, but went on to teach a more wholesome middle way. Even though even the Buddha and his monks only ate once a day, he taught very clear teachings for lay disciples as well as monks.

Also, taking the Buddhas teachings out of context and placing your own understanding on them that are misleading to wrong views should also not go uncorrected. I'm not trying to be your therapist, but I will correct your misinterpretations of the teaching anywhere I see fit, because I can and this is good. All the Buddhists here do this. If my view was merely my view, then why do all the Buddhists on this board say the same thing? Including Koolaid, Xabir, Joeblast, and a number of others. The Buddhas view is quite unique and is not compatible with Vedanta, or any Theism for that matter as they grasp at a positive and Eternalistic essence. Falling into an extreme view that does not fully liberate in the end.

The "no-self" teaching does not mean you do not exist, but rather that you have relative existence to all else. You exist because all else exists. Your self basically is not your self, but relative to all selves. That's what the Buddha teaches, not that you don't exist. Buddhism is not nihilistic. So, there is no negative grasping in Buddhism. At the same time, when you investigate yourself through contemplation of the causes and conditions relative to your existence, you don't find anything inherent there, just a stream of causes and conditions within many, many layers like an onion. So, Buddhism is also not Eternalistic. Teachings that say there is something inherent there that self exists and self shines from it's own power like all Theistic teachings say are an extreme view that is not conducive to liberation from the point of view of Buddhahood and these teachings are called the extreme of Eternalism. Because there is still a subtle, even if considered a positive grasping. So Buddhism is the middle way between these two extremes of Nihilism and Eternalism, positive and negative. So, the teaching of Anatta has to be understood in this way. I think Kate, what you are doing is interpreting it in a Nihilistic fashion, which is not conducive to understanding what the Buddha taught at all.

HAPPY NEW EAR!!

The 4 negations within the context of Buddhas teachings do not reify Buddhanature as a non-conceptual transcendent, either as a Universal Self or a singular and supreme source of all beings. You take out little bits here and there that conform to your projected ideas. But, my view of Buddhism is actually indeed supported by all major Buddhist sects. So, I don't have to start a new Buddhist school as I say nothing different from Buddha, to Nagarjuna to MIlarepa, Tilopa... etc. Your view on the other hand is your own concoction. Which is fine, but I will continually correct your misunderstandings for the sake of other people who are reading this and who knows, maybe someday you'll get it!? . You consider a truly existing non-conceptual, formless and transcendent as an ultimate ground of being, this is not at all supported by any of the major Buddhist sects, from Theravada to Dzogchen. You are taking up a formless and non-conceptual samadhi as proof of inherent existence and transcendent being. The Buddha warns against this in the Pali Suttas, but you ignore this warning for the sake of your own interpretation of the Suttas, not supported by any of the Buddhist traditions. Why is your view not supported by any of the Buddhist traditions? Because your view is not Buddhist. You can take out endless quotes from different places in any text and use them out of context and re-interpret them to support your view, but if you have not directly experienced the meaning of dependent origination, you will have the tendency to subscribe to the subtle obscuration of independent origination and you will interpret everything through this lens. It's been explained in countless texts how a Buddha is after dying but still without inherent existence the stream of dependent origination of the mind continues after the falling away of the body through different dimensions of experience. This does not at all indicate that there is a self sustaining atman. It's almost dumbfounding to me how anyone can even think this after reading the Buddhas teachings? But, clinging to an absolute being or self, no matter how transcendent, is such a very deep tendency. You believe in a transcendent spirit, beyond concepts, yet endowed with will and the power of creation? This is an intellectual, emotional and experiential cop-out. Go deeper! Investigate your belief with open honesty.

You can help them set up the appropriate secondary inner conditions for a future body able to house the state of enlightenment, basically a brain that's able to really self evaluate. As far as an animal actually attaining the supreme state of total Buddhahood? I don't think so, not while in the body at least. They just don't have the brain capacity, though they have the mindstream which is more malleable, which is why I say that a highly evolved being can I think help an animal on their level to go deeper to a certain degree and maybe help them through the bardo of after death to a body of higher capacity or even possible liberation into a pure sambhogakaya form. I think it would depend upon how much baggage the mindstream of the animal has on an individual level, as they are as individual as we are. Supposedly this is what the last Karmapa did for his birds and dog?

Not a view that is compatible with Udana 8.3 The above is a definite and concrete view, a static view. The Buddhas is viewless. The above view is referencing an inherent being that is the causeless cause of the all, who is one with the all but also stands beyond it. So basically we are all expressions of this one, transcendent will of all? This is not a form of Taoism that I would be able to say is in line with the dharma and the Buddha view of liberation.

Again, you are stuck on a misinterpretation of Buddhanature. Buddhanature does not inherently exist. The Buddha uses the words unborn, unbecome... etc. Because he is referencing the fact that you were born and become and through insight, you untie that knot. It's not in reference to a truly existing self shining absolute, but rather the insight that leads to the state of Nirvana. Because all things are always empty, awakening can take place at any time, spontaneously and to full effect, but at the same time, this has to do with primary and secondary conditions, because not even enlightenment inherently exists. So the viewless view of Buddhadharma concerning enlightenment is going to be different from those paths that think there is inherent existence, and view everything from that. There really is a subtle difference, and when it hits you, you get it. The Buddha said in the Pali Cannon what the all is, and the all is just causes and conditions, the elements, but he did not say that there existed a self shining absolute. You keep referencing the Udana 8.3 without proper context and understanding. I know, you take refuge in your own interpretations without direct guidance from those that understand better. You should get a guru.

Ok. Fair enough.

These are Gurdjieffs projections in my opinion as these beings did the cave retreats willfully out of an intense desire to know their own nature through and through in a way that was appropriate for themselves. None of them are forced to do closed retreat. There are all sorts of direct and clear teachings from the Buddha concerning lay disciples and renunciates. Both are natural, dependent entirely on the capacity of an individual. Also, my point was that Buddhas teachings are less corruptible due to their clarity and how large of a volume of them that exist which are all attributed to the words of the Buddha himself. Not to mention the amount of great Buddhist masters that came after the Buddha. But, of course people will corrupt anything. It's just that there is this unique character concerning the Buddha. He did teach with clarity and he taught for 40 years, non-stop. The Buddhas cannon is vast and clear. Jesus on the other hand and plenty of other great teachers of the past, taught in parables, poetic metaphor and in other such ways which are nice, but open to interpretation. There are also very few teachings directly associated with the other great teachers while there are tons of teachings directly associated with the Buddha himself. This is very unique. The Buddha actually started the religion that we practice. We are actually practicing the Buddhas words and guidelines while Christianity for instance is interpreting the words of Jesus and creating something else entirely, for the most part.

You should study more ralis. There are no rules, but there are primary and secondary conditions surrounding it's possibility in a person. Norbu says this all the time. p.s. There are also various experiential signs pointing to it's actual experience and Norbu has said that plenty of people mistake a jhana state for the experience of Rigpa. By the way you talk and your lack of understanding my posts, it seems to me that you are one of these people that need to study more and go back for more transmission to be sure you didn't just experience a blissful jhana state? This is merely my assumption, and it's up to you to realize if it's true or not.

Is this how you express your compassion and good will to all men/women?

.

I think the Buddha differs in that he was so unmistakably clear and repetitive, with many, many enlightened disciples to carry on his words, leaving no room for misinterpretation. He is unique in this sense when it comes to historical teachers. Of course the power of individuals to misinterpret sacred teachings is quite amazing!

I do agree, and do have experience with this, which is why I hesitated in saying what Sunya said. None the less... it seems that he was quite attracted to what I stated above this post. I still respect those that seek deeply, no matter their inclination for Theism which I find is an interpretive block.

I was going to say the same thing, though I don't know the depth of his personal spiritual experience. But he did seem quite attracted to Eternalist Theism which in my opinion is a very deep obstacle between understanding Buddhadharma or not, regardless of how much study you have of it under your belt.

I'm not a huge fan of Gurdgieff in the sense that I don't think he understood Buddhism directly at all. It really doesn't matter if someone studies anything, it's if he/she gets it or not. But, I'm a fan of his humanity and his desire for truth! I just don't find his insights as deep as others might. But, whatever inspires you to evolve from where you are at is what you need! I'm also not saying my opinion will never change either. But, thank you.

Yes, I've read both the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi. I found the Nag Hammadi far more interesting for some reason at the time, which was about 15 to 16 years ago. Certain texts are just Gnostic ideas of creation which are akin to some of the ideas in Buddhism starting at lower levels in the 31 planes, which gives them validity in the sense that they are more concerned with the path to long lived god realms and not Buddhist Nirvana. The Apocryphons and Gospels are all very interesting in their similarity to the style of the gospels in the new testament, while sometimes even being more clear to the point of "inner divinity" that the New Age interpreters of the NT are all on about. I'm not saying they are anywhere as clean and clear, nor are they as profound as what we can readily find through Buddhism, but they are definitely interesting and at the time, when I was into Eternalist Theism, they were very inspiring for me. p.s. Your edits are noted.

The Buddha is mentioned in the first movie. p.s. I actually don't remember what nuances I had contention with, they were generally very minor. I haven't seen either movie for well over a year.

I agree that it's worth a shot. As far as the nuances I don't agree with. I don't want to influence your own realization too much. I know... so strange for such an opinionated guy as I. There is one part in the first one where they compare the Buddha story to Jesus. There are two stories of the Buddha, and they chose the newer one that came after Christianity tried to invade India to make their point instead of the earlier more mundane story. That's actually pretty much it. Other than that... fuckin' brilliant bro. Zeitgeist is something everyone should watch. Including my Mom. I'm going to recommend it right now in fact. Peace

This view is a little extreme. I agree with most of it, but at the same time, I'm not sure that there wasn't a person named Jesus. Can you explain the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library? Just wondering if you can. I have no attachment to Jesus, even though I like what's recorded as his message. I'm just wondering if you can explain away these texts?

Yes, the zeitgeist movies are very interesting. I think everyone should watch them with openness and a grain of salt, as I don't agree with all the nuances, but the general premise I think is brilliant and well informed.