Vajrahridaya

You are too defensive TzuJanLi.

TzuJanLi, Wow, such ego! I guess you have yet to perfect the jhanas. Well me neither. I have experienced all of them though, directly. So, I know where you are coming from when you talk as you do. You don't even study what the Buddha taught and don't even know where the basis of your disbelief in what he taught comes from because it comes from straight out rejection based on a lack of study. So, of course you would say something like this. Farewell.

Like I've said, Hinayana and Vajrayana precepts find their source in different intentions and times. They are different and yes, as you said ForestOE, are relative.

You so don't understand what the Sutta means. You project your Eternalist views all over it thereby missing the point that he is just talking about the state of insight called Nirvana. Where one unbinds one's binding through insight. It is not talking about an eternal self standing essence. You're an Eternalist, and the Buddha did not teach Eternalism. So, none of your beliefs and interpretations of experience can be supported by any Buddhist Sutra except those that find their interpretation in Shentong.

Actually no, Yogacara is not part of Madhyamaka. But, in Tibet they are reconciled. Asanga and Vasubandhu wrote the Yogacara texts and Nagarjuna wrote the Madhyamaka texts.

Yes, yes... so sorry. I would be all 3. Within the -ist of my well known relation.

:lol:

MH, what Xabir is saying is that duality is non-dual... right now. You can transcend your brains limits while integrating them perfectly into this level of awareness. This doesn't mean your brain stops functioning, it means that it continues to function but from a liberated state of perspective.

Norbu has a glass of wine sometimes now and that's it. Me? Why not stay out of my personal life Ralis. You should quit gambling! p.s.

A Buddha attains permanence through a permanent insight into impermanence. Seems contradictory, but it really isn't. You just need to go deeper into what dependent origination actually teaches.

Much Zen got caught up in what appears to be a Zhentog interpretation of yogacara texts. Or the idea of an absolute oneness of everything, based upon a misinterpretation of experience and texts. Not all of Zen seems to have done this, or not all masters within Zen or Chan. Anyway... you can have your view. It will make you happy for a long time. Since you think of me the way you do, there's no point in debating with you.

Only a Buddha, for them doing still occurs without a doer. When there is no one left to slap, there is no reaction as if being slapped, in the sense that you are talking about. I'm not suggesting you go up to a Buddha and slap them physically.

Actually, Tantra has entirely different precepts, because of the level of developed awareness involved. But, you're welcome to judge me. I just think that maybe you should study more Vajrayana because it has different precepts from Hinayana. All precepts are relative, just like peoples internal responses to external stimuli is relative and not across the board absolutely one way or the other. The Buddhas teachings on relative origination should decrees your tendency towards mental and experiential dogmas.

I actually don't do much studying anymore and haven't for a number of years. Most everything I bring up here is just from memory and re-researching for the sake of what seems necessary to quote in the now. I mostly like to read my mentors discussions and listen to my Rinpoches broadcasts and transmissions. I do plan on doing more studying though!

There is deeper. If you think or rather feel or identify that this "one" is the ultimate reality of everything and the true source of existence, this understanding and experience will gladly welcome you into it's arms for you to sleep in after the end of this universes' karmic expressions' time period. Or it might welcome you before this as you absorb into a blissful formless realm at the end of this life to lay dormant for a number of eons in a manifestation of your own experience that a formless essence is at the base of everything and is true, and ultimate, and is the home of everything. It's really just a space of dormancy though. The Buddha had all these experiences you're talking about, and went deeper.

I know the state you're talking about, and if you did study what the Buddha taught, he also taught that the formless is not absolute and to think of it as absolute, or to interpret that experience as absolute, of which I've had more times than could be counted, would be a grave error if your goal is true liberation from samsaric recycling and unconscious rebirth. Your view is more Hindu and the Buddha criticized this view in no uncertain terms. Buddhism is not just a form, it's the elaboration of liberation from Samsara. It's goal is not falling into the trap of overarching oneness that absorbs beings at the end of a cosmic eon and then re-expresses them into the next cosmic eon, ignorantly and without memory of the previous cosmos, or universal life span. What I'm talking about is far deeper than the meditative state of oneness. The Buddha taught that one needs the right view. He also experienced this state of I AM and was taught that it was absolute by a prominent yogi of his time, but realized through deeper investigation that there is further to go. What he realized as dependent origination/emptiness is a deeply intuitive realization that transcends this idea that all paths come from one source and return to one source, that the formless is real and the forms are it's unreal expressions. This is not what the Buddha taught and does not lead to Buddhahood, but rather only formless bliss realms and high heaven realms that last many eons. This is not a dogma, this is just how the cosmos works. All you're experiencing in the I AM space is the illumination of one of the first layers of your unconscious where all impressions are in dormancy and the awareness for a time becomes free of formulated confinements. Then when the awareness comes back into conventionality it seems as if things are being constructed out of this experience of what seemed void and the mind naturally clings to this experience as a taste of "the source of all." I do say, it is a very blissful and powerful experience, but one should go deeper into dependent origination and emptiness. To create a supreme identity out of this, is to miss the boat. But, most traditions do this.

Yea... I know, but the wheel got thrown in here by some all is "one" ists. As if one was not as relative as many, or as if one was more absolute than many or something... so many don't realize how much of a dogma this is!

Jesus bloody Christ save me from this crucifix!

Yes, ok Mr. Jalus, Mr. Super compassionate, non-judgemental!

That is actually quite funny. Though, I'm drinking a Heineken right now. I'm not a monk... LOL! I worked very, very hard today and deserve a little beer to calm my muscles. It's actually considered a medicine in moderation in Tibet.

You're very welcome. Thanks for your interest! It depends upon how deeply you take the view of impermanence. Most paths think that there is some inherent permanent God, consciousness, element, behind the appearance of everything. But Buddhism even sees that depth as impermanent and that the only permanence is making the view of impermanence permanent. But yes, it should eventually be spontaneous insight after one understand it intellectually.

Only certain types of monks are not allowed to drink. So, in fact it's fine for other types of monks and lay practitioners to drink but not 2 the point of loosing awareness.

There is no self standing absolute in Buddhism. Actually, there is no absolute truth in Buddhism and that's the absolute truth of Buddhism. This is an entirely different view from what you might be accustomed to and what most people are accustomed to when they come from a New Age background, or Theistic background.

None of that really matters. It doesn't matter what the language is, as long as dependent origination/emptiness is taught, than it's the dharma in any name whatsoever. The thing is, is that Buddhism is the only path on this planet that teaches this to a nuance, and Taoism comes quite close it seems at least as interpreted by some people who I've met here. All other traditions teach independent origination/consciousness. This leads to a different destination and not Buddhahood. When you understand what dependent origination/emptiness means on an experiential level, you will see that it doesn't mean the same thing as other traditions teach, and you will know directly. Now, Jesus might have known this, but his teachings are for the most part lost... we don't really know. Some Taoist wizards might have taught this... but I have no idea. But, the Christian mystics do not teach this, neither do the Islamic mystics and neither do the Hindu mystics. This is anthropologically and textually factual.