Vajrahridaya

Actually I've been taught by people who know the original language and who've translated for me. I also know a bit of sanskrit myself. Well good! Feel free to have a great life and afterlife without responding to me. This is a board of sharing. I enjoy writing about the finer points of the view. People ask me questions and I answer. If people debate, I also will debate. Why throw stones?

Speak for yourself. The cosmos is a system, the only way to be free in the system is to understand it fully. Falling into a state of being that is free from thought is easy through focus and a process of letting go, but that doesn't guarantee insight into how "you" happen because you are still left with the one experiencing the "letting go" as ultimate. Freedom is freedom from that as well, which takes a particular insight that doesn't seem to come about in most systems of spirituality. The space of I AM is only going to take you to the edge, but not pop you through the bubble.

Wow, you really do hold tightly to your sensually perceived limitations. Ok... Density it is!

It's not belief, it's experience. There are children who remember past lives before they are even conditioned by the concept. I am one of those kids. I had this gift of awareness due to past life practice in deep meditation and contemplation. Sure! Through understanding it's endless continuum, directly and in an experiential way of open insight into the nature of it, one has even more expanded joy in the moment! That is good, and that's your process. Nothing wrong with that. It's not a concept anymore than a seed dropped from a tree carries the impressions of an endless line of trees. But, as the sentient being that you are, you have the power to invert into your awareness into your unconscious and remember this lineage directly. Wow, you haven't met any masters then. Or you don't allow yourself to be open to any that you have met? Through experiential awareness of dependent origination, incredible things can be known. But, because you are not ready to know, this has not been shown to you as of yet.

For you... the two truths paradigm is probably what you need. It has nothing to do with belief, but more with experience, logic and intuition. I know you think you are completely logical. Yes, Samsara. Emptiness does not mean non-existence. There is no such thing as non-existence. You accept it within the limits of your current level of experience and interpretation of experience based upon the level of your remembered experience and interpretations. That's not reality, that's a dream clung to as reality. So, be agnostic about the possibility that you will at some point see that there is.

Actually, it's not the same as cause and effect, otherwise the Buddha would have simply stated that karma was the nature of everything. We've had this discussion before, but you refuse to really understand the nuance. So, we'll just let it be. Dependent origination/emptiness is pointing to a much more profound realization than mere cause and effect. By the way, there is no before in the concept of beginningless time. Also, Buddhas have always existed, they have never not existed.

Emptiness is not the opposite of fullness. You are letting western conditioning interfere, which is understandable since you've not really studied what emptiness means within Buddhist context. So, you think it's referring to a jar being empty over and over again, like a habit that cannot be let go of. Emptiness merely means mutability, no inherent essence, no separate beingness, but it does not mean oneness as if all things were one transcendent substance/non-substance... whatever! How did the thinker arise, as well as the conditions behind the thinking? Regress into sub-components of components endlessly... expand!! And around endlessly... without beginning and without end.

This is why we learn the two truths first in Buddhism, then we get into the fact that there are not two truths. This is Dzogchen. I don't talk much Dzogchen though. There actually are not two truths. This is understandable through Dzogchen teachings of spontaneous liberation. According to Buddhas you are, even if you don't recognize the bars yet. You still think you were born to die and that will be the end of your mind stream as if it was based upon your brain. Your view is somewhat nihilistic in a sense and your vision only extends within the realm of the 5 senses. We've had this discussion before. You still have karmic seeds of unconscious re-birth and suffering within your mind-stream, so you are still a Samsarin from the point of view of a Buddha. But, since you are not open to that point of view, you will undergo your own process and in time... who knows?

Actually, according to Buddhas, it is only for those that realize dependent origination/emptiness without remainder. It's a deceptively deep concept that is missed by most. It's in fact not even a concept... really, it's the nature of all things and experiences.

Yes, therefore both thinker and thoughts are originated dependent upon a beginningless flow of causation. So, when one is anchored in the experiential realization of emptiness, there is no more clinging to either thinker or thoughts, which is what is meant in "there are thoughts but no thinker." As in, even "I" the thinker is a "thought" within an infinite spectrum of inherently empty inter-weaving-causation.

Your still creating a dichotomy between dualistic and non-dualistic vision. What I mean is that the inner state of recognizing the dual as non-dual is as simultaneous as a knowledgeable person differentiating between weeds and roses. The two states of perception are actually not-two for the liberated.

The expression of a Buddha arises dependent upon inner and outer conditions. Even the Buddha sometimes only taught the 4 immeasurable virtues in order to help that person get to a higher rebirth so that they could increase their capacity to eventually understand the dharma and come into better conditions for learning as such.

I'm sure there have been many Buddhas in many religions who did there best to teach according to the needs of their environment or within the capacity of their learned level of expression. That doesn't mean they taught the highest dharma though, then again, who knows? Lots of people have said things that have never been repeated or written down that I'm sure was of value for someone, somewhere at sometime?

In Buddhism, there is talk of the oneness of all Buddhas' in realization, but that doesn't mean that all things are one non-thing. Just that all Buddhas are one in their perfect insight of the nature of things. All things are not one though, which is why the Buddha talked about transcending the formless jhanas/samadhis in order to gain true clarity into the nature of things as inter-dependent, but empty. The oneness experience is a trick of your own consciousness, nothing more, nothing less, it is not the nature of things.

This is a translation. So you have no idea what he really said. Just like the first Milarepa translations were muddled by Christian theistic interpretations. It's clear you don't know what the Buddha taught. Keep quoting the Zen stuff to yourself. Oneness is a view, so is not the viewless view. You go ahead with your oneness, I'll stay with emptiness.

Ok, you can choose to ignore my posts. It might take patience, but the less you talk to me, the less you will see reply's and pretty soon I will fade into a distant memory. Your constant following me around and attacks don't do anything other than clutter the board with nonesense. There are plenty here who enjoy the things I say about the dharma in clarification of the view. You do not, so move on with your life ralis.

You only apply the negation to empty of other and not empty of itself. You believe in an eternal, transcendent basis of all. That's Eternalism. Should be experienced directly of course, but should also be framed within the context of his entire teaching. People like to cut out little bits here and there and project their own meanings onto them outside of the entire teaching. This is just lazy. The Buddha also criticized the Vedas which the Upanishads are based, do you know why? He also criticized Jainism for the same Eternalistic clinging.

I reply to posts towards me, if you would not reply to me, that would be one less post to reply too. You should take an IQ test, find out where you stand. You vomit lots of judgments and sarcastic attacks, but seem to lack the ability to look at what part you play in this.

Buddhism

I always put quotes around quotes, not always boxes, because then the next person can't reply to that post and have it show up in their reply. Then you have to go back and cut and paste the quote from the boxed in quote from the post you are replying too, so I just put quotes around my big quotes. I am guilty of not always naming sources though. I just quote and put quotes around it if it fits the point I'm trying to make.

Ah, so many anti-intellectual, anti-debate, new agers in the world. Alas, could be the fall of the dharma.

The topic was brought up by someone else ralis. Look at how subjective your interpretation of things are for a change.

Ok, thanks for that clarification.