Vajrahridaya

Yes, and Nagarjuna was clear that to take emptiness as an inherent ultimate, or a self established truth is exactly what the mistaken understanding of emptiness is. Nagarjuna was a very staunch supporter of the doctrine of anatta and a non-substantialist and criticized Vedanta, the Upanishads and the Vedic traditions in general. I think it's somewhat funny, and naive when Hindus or supporters of the Upanishads use Nagarjuna to support their argument of an eternal self existing cosmic consciousness.

I generally don't consider this proof of one mind which many Zen teachers talk about. The mind only school of Buddhism as it appears from India into Tibet says that we all have individual store house consciousness' of beginningless origin, not that everything is one mind. The Dalai Lama said that we all have unique mind streams without beginning that all co-dependently originate universe after universe, as well as each other. Thus even these unique mind streams are empty of inherent substance, or soul. Thus Buddhanature as well cannot be established as inherently existent. Neither is Buddhanature a grand oneness.

I agree, because there is no fixed ultimate with the insight of dharma.

The Buddha taught that consciousness as well arises dependently and is not a self. Thus Shaivism and Buddhism are not in cahoots. They teach different things. So, you either agree with the Buddha, or you agree with Shankara, and you cannot agree with both, except on a superficial level of some of the benefits of meditation and yoga. Consciousness arises due a kind of fermentation of the elements as they cycle in each moment. Consciousness is not a basis for everything, it's just the most important element that arises within the cycle of dependent origination because without that element, there would be no sentience and no liberation as well.

It's an endless cycle without inherent substance or selfhood. It's just dynamic creativity without origin or self.

And the prize goes to Adept!

The previous universe is whats in the blank according to Buddhists, there is no transcendent ultimate truth in Buddhism. Buddhism is not a top down philosophy where we take a transcendent ultimate and build the framework on top of that, saying that the transcendent ultimate is the basis for everything, beyond thought and mysterious. This is not same insight into the nature of things as what the Buddha taught. What I filled in the blank with is talked about in Buddhist cosmology, but it's not talked about in any other spiritual philosophy or cosmology. Only Buddhism talks like this and reveals like this as a religion that is.

This is just taking up a formless samadhi as absolute, which the Buddha taught against. I don't understand how you can say you've studied what the Buddha taught when it was made clear that he had these formless samadhis, including the samadhi of infinite consciousness, and saw it as impermanent, even if one were to absorb into it for eons. His insight into dependent origination and emptiness came from experiencing these samadhis and going past them through this insight, considered the 9th jhana beyond form and formless samadhi states, including beyond infinite consciousness.

What forms of Buddhism run counter to the four-fold negation? I can't think of any other than Dark Zen.

Right, they are experiential insights, but not things, though they are the understanding of the way of things that liberates one from things, the way the liberated flow of things does. As all things are liberated by nature, being empty of inherent existence, thus Samsara rightly understood is Nirvana.

Then why would the Buddha teach to transcend the samadhi of infinite consciousness? Why would he say that consciousness as well originates dependently and is empty of inherent existence? It's all over the Suttas, and I've quoted this fact many times here. You absolutely don't want to get what dependent origination means because you are strongly fixed on being born and raised a Hindu from India in the Shaiva sampradaya, you are very attached to this persona. The Buddhas teaching reveals that there as well is no ultimate subject. It's written all over the pali texts, and the mahayana texts and the way you interpret the Parinirvana Sutra is completely out of context and merely wishful thinking. Believing in an ultimate ground of being that transcends everything but is consciousness is a fixation and what the Buddha called the extreme of Eternalism. He wouldn't have argued this truth if he didn't have that insight. Theravadin Buddhists get what the Buddha taught, Shaivites do not, they get what Shaivism teaches which is an entirely different understanding of how the universe works, as well as an entirely different definition of liberation. Anyway... any talking with you is useless since you cannot debate without resorting personal insults.

You're taking my words out of context, thus missing the point. Emptiness is also empty of inherent existence, thus they talk about the emptiness of emptiness as in, neither can emptiness be established as true and real from it's own side. So once again, no... dependent origination is not a true existence, it's just an insight into relativity. It's the way of things, but it's not things. It cannot be considered as you say with the Tao, that the Tao is everything. That all things are the Tao, it's not like this with Dependent origination, as it's merely an insight that liberates completely without remainder. You can't say that, because you are making dependent origination a self, thus you are missing the insight of emptiness. Dependent origination is an insight into how things work, into the process, but the process is empty, thus dependent origination does not truly exist either. The insight of dependent origination arises dependent upon seeing the emptiness of things and vice versa. Emptiness does not mean nothingness though, so it's not the same kind of meditative absorption into the sphere of nothingness that is talked about in Taoist meditation. But anyway, the INSIGHT of dependent origination arises dependent upon the experiential insight of emptiness and the experiential insight of emptiness arises dependent upon the insight of dependent origination. Dependent origination does not transcend things, it merely frees you from things.

I said, transcendent of things... You are saying exactly what I said, that it's not a thing, it's beyond things, that means exactly the same thing that I said. In Buddhism we reveal the nature of the mystery thus find liberation through insight, revealing that there is really no mystery.

He's just talking about emptiness. You're reading too much into it. It is a teaching tool meant to stop the proliferation of views. There is no school in Buddhism who's teachings are counter to this except maybe Dark Zen.

I appreciate the attempt, but it sounds like Tao is still being likened to a transcendent of things. A primordial ground of being. It still sounds as if Wang Bi is caught up in one, other or all of the formless states of Samadhi, including the Samadhi of emptiness. Thus the insight of dependent origination, noted as the 9th jhana beyond the formless and nothingness or infinite samadhis, thereby transcending any sense of fixation. Sounds like Trika Shaivism. Still not the insight of dependent origination. But, very deep and blissful, also leading to expanding virtue. It is nice of you... thank you! It's just, I've seen this type of consideration before within the paradigm of the 36 tattvas in Trika Shaivism, which I studied and practiced for many years. Thanks though. I do appreciate your insights. Please sleep well!! Voices and spirits sometimes keep me up... all night!! I'm not talking about my own inner voice either... wha, wha, whaaaaa!

What did he say anyway? Lest thee be banned... or maybe that's my secret plan!!?? Muahahahaha!!

No, all phenomena arise dependently, including the idea of an ultimate arises dependently, thus, Dependent origination is not a primordial source, otherwise it would not be empty of self existence. You're having a hard time getting the subtlety here. Only the fact that phenomena arise dependently since beginningless time does eternity have relative relevancy here, but not ultimately. You are trying to say that dependent origination is an ultimate truth, but because the insight of dependent origination reveals emptiness, it as well cannot be truly established, except relatively, thus it as well is an empty dharma without self reference. Dependent Origination is not a transcendent thing, it is the way the process of the cosmos happens since beginningless time, but is not an ultimate source of things. No, you are honestly not understanding the implications of the Buddhas teaching. It is not a trick of words, it is an experiential emptying of face value facts, thus it is self liberating instead of self defining.

That's be awesome! Though, I bet the best moderator would get the lowest rating. Just like the good cop is hated the most by all the criminals who can't pay him off!

HAHA!! Touche! Why yes dear watson... I am partially a Brit by ancestry as well as a Buddhist who is a student of a lineage of Buddhas who come from the original Buddha who did indeed debate that d.o./e is indeed a superior view that liberates one from fixed views. P.s. I'm not saying that other views are not valid and true in their own sense, but they all have their results that are different from Buddhahood. So, if you don't wish to be a Buddha, than indeed, whatever view that is not in line with Buddhahood would be your absolute truth because it will lead to a goal other than Buddhahood as per your desire, thus is true and absolute within that particular paradigm of relativity. Thus, dependent origination at work once again. The fruit that arises from a plant is dependent upon the type of seed is planted.

Thank you... p.s. Wow... another negative for really liking a post by a fellow Buddhist?

A little over-simplified, but good. I think other than Bon that Taoism is the most eye to eye with Buddhism. p.s. Oh nice! I get a negative for agreeing with someone. Ok... I looove haters!! My enemies teach me patience and forbearance.

:lol: Don't forget loosing to India with your own sport of Cricket! A country you once dominated violently considering them savages who knew no better, kicked you out through non-violent opposition.

Since dependently originated phenomena, which is absolutely everything, is empty of inherent existence, it actually never arises from the perspective of no absolute basis, so there is no one to have a view, to be attached to a view and there is nothing to be viewed... really. It's really just all relative. If your view of the Tao is simply as a process of mutually dependent phenomena, then we don't have a disagreement. But as soon as you say it's a basis, a supreme source outside of phenomena, then we have a disagreement because you are proliferating an Eternalistic view, as if something can be transcendent of things and be it's own basis, or self exist without cause? Only then do we have something to debate about. Apech say's no, but sometimes it seems that you say yes as well as Lau Tzu, but the way Apech defines what Lau Tzu says... it makes more sense to me from the Buddhist perspective and thus I don't have a debate with Apech's view. Except when he say's I have a fixed view. I don't. It's you and many others here who get all defensive when their view is challenged and I don't use disparaging words when I get started, I just say in so many words that "This view is a fixed view and will not lead to liberation from unconscious rebirth and psychological suffering." Then all of a sudden, people jump out of the woodwork saying, "Oh, you have no compassion, or your view is fixed, or how can existence work without an eternal, self existing and transcendent basis... you must be an idiot for thinking that it can." So on and so forth. Just like you... you get a little personal in your rebuttal instead of just sticking to the debating of views. You get personal, because you are attached to your view as a Self of all and there is no other real reason. Relatively speaking though, yes... dependently originated phenomena of dynamically shifting types persists eternally. So, we are not talking of an Eternal absolute, but rather an eternal flow of relativity. Buddhism does not posit an absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth, and that's the absolute truth.

I don't define it like that, the Buddha did and it's really just dependent origination and emptiness, no fixed view. To see it as fixed is to miss the point. I debate against fixed views, Eternalistic views which most spiritual traditions are defined by. So sure, It's a view that's fixed on freedom from the proliferation of views. Just like when one permanently understands impermanence, the realization is permanent regarding impermanence. Yes, quite the show of how Pompous the Brit's are! Their pomposity knows no bounds!! It proliferates it's view of superiority and totalitarianism everywhere and squashes or tries to use eugenics against what it deems as inferior racial traits.

Yes, true.