Vajrahridaya

I said he taught relativity. I then said that Einstein thought that Buddhism was the best religion on the planet and quoted him in saying basically this. Then I wrote a commentary on Einsteins theories and compared them with Buddhist teachings, a long page actually... what is it now, about a year ago? You never commented on that page, instead you followed me around for a very long time in the same fashion that you are now, with very little to say, except hateful remarks. Most everything you say is based on assumption and misappropriation of information.

Hell realms exist, and you can experience them directly. Do you have a fear of going beyond the known, and do you lack meditative experience? You should ask yourself these questions instead of staying trapped in 5 sense perception. I know they exist as there are dimensions that are self illumined and have no need for a sun, illumined by love, joy, and pure awareness. Then there are realms that are dark and are illumined by anger and violence. There is more to the cosmos than meets your 5 senses Ralis. We live in a lower middle realm with night and day, with lots of dense friction. There are realms that are even more dense than this though. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche also teaches that these realms exist and he has also experienced them directly, just as I have. So, yes, I used to question their validity and I don't believe anything until I experience it first hand. These realms are experienced as clearly as this one is, and are not merely dreams, or fanciful projections. You have to raise your energy to a certain degree and open up your chakras in order to experience what the great Masters did and do. It would be a quantum leap for you and your mind would never be the same. Good day.

Everything is variable in Buddhist Tantra, all arising dependent upon the intention. What's most important is awareness, as this is the luminosity of a being. I do wonder how much cross pollination there has been between Buddhist Tantra and what seems to me to be Taoist Tantra. I agree, I have the same experience. Yes, I think in Highest Yoga Tantra we think of the womens energy like this as a red sphere, merging with the white sphere in us and we put it in various places, like the tip of the penis, and other places depending upon where one is at in the practice of karmamudra or sexual tantra. Yes, my practice is Dzogchen and we don't do any of this really, we use the Ah sphere of different colors and the white, red and blue spheres putting them in entirely different places and we think of white as associated with water, red with fire and blue with space or ether. We do put the white in the third eye though for the particular practice that I do. It's really nice to share with you Hagar!

Actually, I'm not making any assumptions. I grew up with Vedic Brahmin's who could repeat the Shree Rudram in 7 minutes from memory. I mean real Vedic Brahmins who knew all the vedas, upanishads, Sruti and Smrti texts. I've been witness to many traditional Vedic ceremonies involving fire, installation of Murti ceremonies... etc. With follow along texts. I used to read from the various Gitas, Chalisas daily and I've read many of the Puranas. I've read from so, so many Hindu saints, Tukaram, Jnaneshwar, Mirabai, the list goes on for a very long time, both well known and lesser known. I've read from the South Indian Siddhars. Blah, blah, blah. I know more about the Vedas and it's history, culture, spirituality than you know Bob. So did the Buddha and he still criticized it as not being the path to Moksha. Bob, I think the fact of how personal you take this is a deeper revelation. Also the fact that you always fall back on adhom attacks is another revelation. It was hard to break free from my Vedic, all comes from one god, conditioning. Much harder than you know. I don't know it all, but I know plenty enough, both through knowledge and direct cognitive inference in meditative states and transmissions from living and beyond the body Buddhas. But, you are welcome to your perspective. I'm still going to share what I know.

We use different colored spheres, or dots in different locations according to which element needs to be utilized, the red is generally associated with fire. Depending on the practice and associated intention, we'll put it in the belly, throat, wherever, and have a mantra associated with it, or a specific contemplation. It's also used in sexual tantra. It's used in Tummo alot, where one raises the body heat to purify the channels and we'll put it in the center of the body. This is what is used by those monks that dry ice cold towels on their body as a test of their heating capacity. In Hindu Tantra, we contemplated the red as the entire body and I'd sometimes spontaneously see this in meditation, and it was a sign that the body and channels were being purified in order to integrate "spirit" with it. Sometimes in Buddhist Tantra it's associated only with the lower 3 chakras. There are so many different practices for different intended outcomes that are guided by a master in Buddhist Tantra, and I'm not so qualified to go into these details here. In Buddhist tantra, these are called kriyas and we consider them a sign that the prana or energy of the body is running through the nadis, or channels in a kind of haywire manor. Pranayama (breathing practices), yogic postures, specific visualizations and contemplations and also certain types of foods are then administered to alleviate the problem. Hindu Tantra generally considers these experiences as signs of Gods entry into the body or a sign of kundalini awakening (same thing). One of the reasons why I left Hindu Tantra for a more practical approach in Buddhist Tantra. p.s. on the type of red? In Tummo, definitely bright red, radiating through the entire body from the center. I guess it depends upon the practice and the mind of the individual cultivator. I don't practice Tummo myself, though I've experienced it. I do other practices that utilize the red sphere.

If you want to know how Buddhism teaches, read Abhidhamma, Abhidharma and Abhidharma kosha. This will take a while. Then maybe you will realize that the teaching and experience of how the universe does it's universing is different according to Buddhas than it is according to the Devas.

Both you and I know that cosmic consciousness, shiva, brahman, the infinite consciousness is considered the origin of the cosmos in Vedanta. From the Vedas, to the Upanishads, to Shankaracharyas commentaries, to Trika Shaivism. Maya arises out of Prakriti and Purusha is the Atman, and all of it is Brahman. Vedantins consider the Turiya state the recognition of an ultimate, self shining reality. You're whole paradigm is a top down revelation of independent origination. The realization is just not the same as the Buddhas. All the traditions based upon the Vedas have a cyclical understanding of Eternity that bases the creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe on a divine element, a formless basis that is self shining and originates the universe independently. It is also one with it. Samkhya reveals 24 tattvas, Vedanta reveals 25, and Trika reveals 36 tattvas, all in a top down fashion, which works dimensionally on the mind in contemplation as intermingling layers from Maya to pure infinite consciousness as the independent originator and as one with it all. Yes, but dependent origination according to the Buddha is the all, there is no need for a divine and eternal element which starts and stops the process. According to the Buddha, your turiya state is merely one or other of the formless jhanas clung to as an ultimate identity out of the natural mistake of the jiva to try to cling to a self as ultimate. The profound experience and view of D.O. has to be related to how the Buddha taught it, not how you wish to see it according to Vedanta. The Buddha would not have criticized the Vedas and would have taught Vedanta if they were the very same. But he didn't, and he in fact debated with those that believe in an Eternalistic element, saying that is the wrong view if you truly want Moksha. Again, your non-dual is substantiated, by a truly existent one of all, an ultimate Self of all that subsumes all differences. Buddha just didn't teach this. His cosmology is different from Vedantins. Is that so?

Yes, who here doesn't need it? Also, this is an internal stance, even after attaining realization, what did the Buddha do... go around and talk about the raft for 40 years, it's structure, it's oars, the ocean it must traverse. Just because a person is enlightened doesn't mean they don't talk about how to get out of darkness. Because I'm not a Buddha, doesn't mean I don't have my qualifying experiences, and clear understandings derived from the Buddhas words and meditative experiences. Also, the Buddha makes it quite clear where the Upanishads lead to. It's all right there in black and white, in the Pali Suttas. Not to mention all the commentaries by Masters concerning the same all the way from Hinayana to Dzogchen. It's fine if you don't agree, that doesn't mean I should shut up though, why should people follow erroneous paths? Of course everyone has their process and cultivating through the Upanishads does lead to mastering the 4 brahmaviharas which leads to higher rebirth, and higher capacity to one day understand the dharma.

As well as Tantric Hinduism and Buddhism of genuine lineage. You are entirely mistaken. There is not one type of Buddhism that makes this mistake, only individuals. Even in Hinayana, there is the grounding practice of Vipassana. Then of course you have Vajrayana with the yogic practices, and the contemplations of the chakras and bringing the high energy down through mantra and visualizations of various sorts. Vipassana does this very well for a samatha cultivator. Also in Vajrayana the contemplations associated with the 3 kayas, shashumna, chakras and the use of mantras as well as yogic postures and breathings intermingled with visualizations and contemplations. You must be living on another planet. The Buddha doesn't teach this type of cultivation and warns his monks to ground and not get excited about passing "signs" in meditation and to practice vipassana which is integration of awareness and body. Then of course we have the methods of Vajrayana which do just the same in an accelerated rate. All stuff we talk about in Vajrayana through different terminology without making the Eternalist mistake that there is an inherent essence to cling to as absolute.

Sounds exactly like my experience in Hindu Tantra over a decade ago. We also have the contemplation of the red bindu/sphere/tigle in both Hindu and Buddhist tantra. I've also experienced the exact same, jumping, then calming through focusing on the lower DT, or lower 3 chakras in Buddhist/Hindu tantra. So interesting!

I do agree that he is a seeker, but I do think he is deluded by various assumptions. Still, I think he means well.

Nope, I understand the Upanishads and where they lead, higher rebirth! They are good... but they are not going to lead to Buddhahood. It doesn't matter, the Upanishads still uphold independent origination/consciousness. There is no insight into dependent origination/emptiness elaborated upon in any Upanishad. There is the, "beyond being and non-being" level of comprehension though. That is the highest jhana as exposed by the Buddha, the state beyond perception and non-perception, so one can ascertain from this fact that the Upanishads are still revolving around absorption states and merging with the formless levels of being. This all still references absorption. No, it does not include Buddhism. As Buddhism teaches non-absorption and insight, or rather, cutting through. Absorption is used as a tool to clear the mind and to experience all the levels of Samsara, but not as a basis to meld the mind with, but rather as merely a way to see all the side effects of having a mind, or to see all the levels of mind and inter-mind-manifestation, i.e. different realms, past lives, gaining super natural power over ones body and elements, etc. The aim of the Upanishads and the Buddhas teachings are very different, as elaborated upon by many Buddhist Masters, including the Dalai Lama. The Upanishads lead to mastery over the 4 immeasurables or Brahmaviharas. It's very clear that they do not teach the Buddhadharma, but rather the path to higher rebirth.

It is with "right view" the first of the 8 fold noble path.

This is your karma determined by your previous lives. Which is fine and understandable. I do not believe anything until I see it for myself. Thus my beliefs are based upon my direct experiencing through meditation, contemplation, practice of various sorts. I don't have the same karma, as I've met plenty of people who have indeed transcended psychological suffering and have awareness of previous lives and their after life. I in fact know of a number of incredible Buddhist Masters both in the East and West by name who fit the description of beyond psychological suffering. That's totally fair and understandable. I do not feel that you are making an attack.

Hi Aaron, I didn't ignore it. I read it thoroughly. It doesn't pertain to our debate though. I'm not trying to make an argument for the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism. I've already concluded that some Taoists have a view of Tao similar to how the Buddhists view the Dharma, and others substantiate the Tao and turn it into a primal self shining cause of everything, endowed with supreme will over everything, which would not at all be in line with the Buddhas Dharma. That's all. Lots of Zen/Chan is influenced by Taoism and lots of Taoism is influenced by Zen/Chan and even merged into one system really. I mostly like my Buddhism Indian or Tibetan for that reason as mostly it's Buddhism that influenced Hinduism and not the other way around. So, in a sense, you are right, Buddhism and Taoism in certain lineages have different goals. From a certain perspective, we do break the cycle, but only by knowing and understanding how it works do we break the cycle of unconscious rebirth. There is never really transcending circles in the ultimate sense, just becoming aware of it's ways so as to never fall into the cycle of ignorance, ever again. A Buddha can take birth anywhere that is needed to help alleviate suffering of other beings, at the same time, they can only do so if the conditions are ripe in that place to originate the occurrence of the birth of a Buddha. So a Buddha remains in a cycle, but in a cycle of awareness and wisdom, rather than a cycle of ignorance and stupor. p.s. According to Buddhism, if I have not mastered awareness of death, if I have not transcended the ignorance around death and if I die without knowledge of my previous existences and knowledge of my future existences, I am considered bound by the cycle of Samsara, or the recycling program of the ignorant.

Buddhism teaches that there really is no "self", and that is the crux of it's difference from other systems of spiritual interpretation and method.

Yes, the Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, as in, go beyond transcendence. The Buddhas teaching transcends absorption paths as taught in the Upanishads, to absorb into absolute infinite consciousness, or nothingness, space, beyond perception and non-perception. The Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, to become completely eminent. There is nothing to transcend.

I used to think that too. But, Vajrayana just doesn't teach that, neither does Mahayana and neither does Theravada. So, you are going to have to open up to a new way of viewing in order to understand what non-dual means in Buddhism. You are having a hard time doing this. I know, it's not easy to do this. The fact remains. In Hinduism, advaita means not two, but one. In Buddhism, Anatman or Anatta means no self, neither one, nor many. This is what non-dual means in translations of Buddhist teachings. Non-dual literally means, not-two in English, and that doesn't mean that there is a definite one though, not for Buddhists. You can think that Buddhism is wrong to you, but this is what Buddhism teaches. The Buddha did not teach the same definition of Nirvana and Samsara as the Upanishads nor Adi Shankaracharya. Non-dual means not one and not many, because we revolve our understanding around dependent origination and emptiness while you resolve everything into a single consciousness and utilize the top down theory of independent origination. Actually, Buddhist dialectic is much subtler than resolving everything into a one. In the Prajnaparamita Sutra you can read about how we are trained to understand that neither I nor other beings inherently exist. We are not taught to resolve everything into a one either, but to realize inter-connectivity and emptiness. Emptiness is not at all equal with the concept of Brahman, a self shining reality. In Buddhism, we don't feel that resolving into a singularity will in fact break you from the bondage of unconscious rebirth, because at the end of a cosmic eon, you are swallowed up by this attachment to a singularity. So beings are literally swallowed up by their belief in an ultimate Self during pralaya. The vast majority of beings, or those that do not attain Buddhahood are absorbed by the singularity at the end of a cosmic eon to be recycled and re-expressed in the next without memory of the prier. Our cosmologies are different. So we don't feel that you do break the bonds of karma because you don't see how deeply karmas' vines hold you as a follower of the Brahma vehicle, and you can call it whatever you want, but to Buddhas it's all considered the Brahma vehicle, advaita, vedanta, etc. Any belief system, or interpretation of experience that resolves into independent origination is considered a Brahma vehicle. You can say that it doesn't, but I've studied Advaita and Vedanta of many sorts for many years and they all resolve into a primal ground or single cause for all things, i.e. the cosmic consciousness beyond name and form. We as Buddhists don't see this system of method and focus as ending the bondage of karma but merely leading to higher rebirth either in a long lived deva realm or in a formless deva realm. It's all there in the suttas. There is more detail in the Abhidhamma and even more in the Abhidharma and Abhidharma Kosha. Buddhism just doesn't teach that all things resolve into a singularity. Our non-dual is not the same as your non-dual. This is not hiding behind words, it's just what Buddhism teaches and the experience is different. Your non-duality is substantiated by Brahman the independent, while our non-duality is non-substantiated by emptiness and dependent origination.

May you fare well!

What traditions are transcendental? Tantric Buddhism is not about transcending anything. Tantric Shaivites would also argue against this assumption with many yogi's as proof to contradict your statement. p.s. Why do you think there is Buddhist and Hindu yoga? Tantra is specifically developed to create an open conduit through the body for subtler realizations and manifestations of energy and for elongating the physical life in order to maintain a continuity in conscious practice for the sake of deepening insight into the hear and now. There is nothing to transcend according to the Tantric traditions except ignorant awareness. This is all we work on transcending. Through yoga, we realize that liberation is here in the body, while on planet Earth.

Where'd you come up with this? There are so many Tantric Buddhist and Tantric Hindus who live past 100 years and reportedly there are hermits who have to stay away from the regular people of the planet in order to not be infected by their wayward chi who live hundreds of years. I've read Autobiographies of both Tantric Buddhist and Hindu Masters who write of meeting these 100's of years old hermit yogi's to receive special teachings. Of course traditional Tantra in India and Tibet understands the exact same principles you are elucidating through different terminology. I've had the exact same realization that you are talking about many years ago through meditation in the Tantric Hindu tradition.

This is what non-dual means in Hinduism. In Buddhism, non-dual means, neither one, nor many. All infinite mind streams are interconnected, individual, but also empty of inherent existence. So, we are neither one, nor are we many. Non-dual is an English word that means literally, "not-two". It doesn't necessarily mean that all things are one. Through false clinging to a self the identity is maintained. When one does not cling to a false self anymore, the propulsion of beginningless cycles of false clingings are liberated into an endless stream of liberated from self, self references as an offering to endless sentient beings. This is what the Parinirvana sutra means when it talks about self. It's still not ascribing to an inherent self, or a single ground of being that all beings inherently are, it's just talking about the true purpose is found for a person as a Buddha. This is why the self described in the parinirvana sutra is not the same as what is described in the Upanishads, neither on an experiential level, nor on a level of logic. This is extremely subtle. It can be understood how this is so though and this view does lead to a different experience and different inner interpretation of all being in general, even on a level beyond thought. The purpose of Buddhism is not realizing oneness. It's realizing endless compassion, and blissful enjoyment through this compassion is a side effect.

Wild!

But you don't know what that means to the Buddha. So, we try to clarify the meaning for you, and you resist the insight because you think it means there is something real that is transcendent of everything even though the Buddha said that the all is merely causes and conditions and insight is merely seeing directly it's emptiness. You don't have the experiential insight of emptiness in order to properly comment on the sutta. All you have is the I AM stage. Which is fine and wonderful! But, Xabir and I are just saying that there is more and subtler. We can, it's also supported by Buddhas teachings, so we do! You not liking it, doesn't make it any less true.