Vajrahridaya

Obviously not, because of emptiness. Indeed. That means you are stuck in absorption and re-expression, as Earth dissolves into Heaven and Heaven into the mysterious unknown that hasn't been penetrated by the insight of dependent origination and stays mysterious and transcendent. So at the end of a cosmic eon, your so called immortals in the heavens are resolved into ignorance once again to be expressed in forgetting to do the process all over again during the next cosmic eon/cycle. That doesn't mean it's still not trapped in Samsara (unconscious absorption and re-expression or rebirth or Universal extension and return recycling program, over and over and over and over and over again). Alas. The Buddha did state that all the mundane siddhis (super natural and natural powers) can all be attained through various means, but liberation from unconscious rebirth only comes for those with penetrative insight of dependent origination/emptiness. You are of course free to not believe that to be so.

Vice versa buddy. I'm talking more about Buddhism. None the less. You're just making unfounded assertions on how much you know. You're not talking to someone like that. Uh hu... Yea, yea... We're on a board for discussion, not making assumptions and unfounded assertions about people we don't know, arising dependent upon feeling insecure that their precious universalist trip is being challenged. I must say though Allan, you do come across as a cheery fellow non-the-less. Also, nice blog! Taoism in my view integrates very easily with Buddhism, probably the most easiest other than the ancient Bon of Tibet.

I used to think it was nihilistic when I couldn't understand how the universe could exist without an Eternal base, i.e. universal consciousness. When that rug is pulled from under your deeply held attachment to a universal Self/Source/God of all, the first thing the mind will do is scream nihilism out of fear without going into actually understanding how the Buddhist view is not nihilistic, it's just not Eternalist. It's hard to go from top down view to sideways view when you've been looking at the universe at a top down angle for so, so, long.

Well, "Heart Drops of Dharmakaya" is pretty darn close.

Oh, I'm so vain I think every time you mention Buddhism in the way you mentioned it above, you're talking to me even if ever so very slightly within your own mind.

Same in Highest Yoga Tantra or Anuttarayoga tantra in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism where one practices with a live karma mudra or action lock with a yogin/yogini. But, one must have developed a level of mastery in meditative practice and visualization in the practices of Generation and Completion stages involving mandala practice or deity yoga.

Someone is taking a discussion on differences a bit personally? Why do so many people here feel that we all have to agree in order to progress? projections, projections, concepts, concepts. Why not google Thigle and find out what it means Kate? Here... I'll help ya... Googled Thigle Consider the flower thrown! P.S. On second thought, many of the answers you find might be a little confusing... maybe. Here, this seems to be one of the better thread of answers that I could find online. Yahoo answers, "What is the Buddhist tigle" It really just means "sphere" or "drop". The last answer is my favorite... There are really so many different uses for tigle in Buddhist tantric practice depending upon which practice. But, at the highest stage, the "essence" tigle is the manifestation of enlightened mind.

Well, your not going to find any support for "self" existent essence of all things or "universal" self existence in any form of genuine Buddhism that finds it's support in the Pali Canon or Mahayana Sutras. I'm just saying that the words do sound like they are saying what you are insinuating, but I've in the past had the habit of reading the same into these books before being corrected by further study and pointing out instructions by my Rinpoche and Lappon. Anyway... lets see if he even answers me??

Yes, but not by Lau Tzu himself. The Buddha did comment and elaborate very clearly on his own words. He taught for 40 years, created an order of monks, etc. We are far more clear on who the Buddha was and what he taught than we are about Lau Tzu who remains largely a mystery. ... UGH. I'm so nauseous... the nausea is the sickness in this case and vice versa.

Actually, yes it is. The thigle arises dependent upon experiential wisdom. What you are reading is from my practice and teaching lineage. When they say essence, they are not talking about an inherent thing that self exists and arises independently, all alone. The essence as in the essence of insight into the nature of things is bliss, as in bliss is inherent to wisdom, arises in conjunction with it. The thigle is a spherical symbol of this wisdom that can be experienced directly, which arises dependent upon and in conjunction with experiential insight. I've experienced this thigle many times directly in and out of meditation. Because I've been schooled by a Lappon (high level scholar) who translates Tibetan into English. I do feel that I have a much clearer basis for understanding the meaning and context of these terms that find their origin within Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism. Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche is not talking about an inherent essence of everything that self exists. It is true that the essence of the wisdom experience is bliss though and the experience makes ones mind spherical and whole. Though, I haven't read his book, he is a teacher from the Nyingma tradition, the same tradition as my Dzogchen teacher. I'm sure their teachings cannot be too far from each other in "essence." p.s. Since my Lappon friend has Vajrakilaya transmission in the Nyingma tradition, I've presented the cut out to him for commentary. Lets see what he says?

Your way of explaining Taoism always agrees with my Buddhist sensibilities. Like I've said, there are Taoists that I agree with and Taoists that I don't. I don't agree with Lau Tzu on certain things, and agree with Chuang Tzu on more things and I love the I-Ching for it's continual divined guidance through the thrashing currents of Samsara. Also, who really knows what Lau Tzu means by all his seemingly Theistic metaphors talking about the Tao being the mother or creator of the 10,000 things? I wasn't there and he didn't do much elaborating himself. It's all open for interpretation.

I know... sadly I'm only here to kill time while I'm sick in bed... wha wha... I'll be gone again soon enough.

Actually there is no nihilistic void either, as this interpretation or experience of the Muni's teaching arises dependently and lacks self existence as well. Thus the Buddha teaching is nether nihilistic nor is it eternalistic. It's completely free of all views and their proliferation's, thus taking up the viewless view.

You dear Songs are happy to choose in your infinite potential for freedom!

I'm all ears! Or eyes rather...

Actually what I am talking about is supported by the vast majority of Buddhism. But, you are welcome to your own take of anything and everything. The Buddha never talked about emptiness as a source of everything, as the root of the 10,000 things in any real sense. Actually the Buddha mostly talked about inter-dependent origination and not much about the emptiness of inter-dependent origination. The elaboration on emptiness especially by Nagarjuna came later, but is well supported by the Pali Suttas. The Buddha never talked about there being a definitive singular source of all things, and actually elaborated as to why this is a Samsaric view. It seems you are more into reading Taoism, so I cannot blame you for not knowing what the Buddha taught. But, if you want to know, you should study it more. Lau Tzu and the Buddha did not teach the same truth about things in the ultimate sense, though there are some relative similarities even though we hardly have much to go on when it comes to Lau Tzu as he didn't really say much or elaborate much on the meaning of his small amount of words we can attribute to him. The I-Ching divination has been used in my family my entire life, I'm 35 and a half... teh he . Though I see it as a good way to traverse through samsara as it senses the pull and sway of it's currents, for a definitive source of enlightened teaching practice methods I do personally look elsewhere. The Buddha clearly states that there is no primordial overarching source of the cosmos, it's just a beginningless process of recycling, without a mother or father. You could say the universe is a self perpetuating bastard. But only metaphorically.

Well, the thread does say, "Taoism vs. Buddhism". Yes, but the teaching and contemplation of emptiness as taught by the Buddha reveals this expanded experience of overarching existence or transcendent reality arises dependently and if considered real and independent merely leads to re-absorption into an experience of a ground of being rather than liberation as defined by the Buddha. I think it's also a problem of experience and whether one goes deeper or gets stuck in the very blissful and virtue filled state of oneness, which is a very attractive aspect of Samsara (process of recycling) according to Buddhist teaching.

Generally speaking, yes, there is no empirical scientific proof for either.

Actually the Buddhist view is a viewless view. The view that all things come from one transcendent non-thing is considered a view according to Buddhist right view/viewless view. Ok.

This is all great. But I don't agree that this is in line with what the buddha taught. Emptiness does not mean nothingness in Buddhism, it means interdependent origination, which is different from independent origination and the idea or experience of an ineffable "source" of all, no matter how transcendent, beyond concept, rational thought, words, etc., is not in line with the Buddhas teaching. It is in line with Hindu teaching as well as some peoples view of the Taoist teaching.

I do agree. We can all agree that we are connected and that Compassion needs to be the ground of all action. No matter what your religion or spiritual or philosophical tradition is.

A Buddha sees right through it and reveals that this formless whole is really just made up of repressed parts waiting and quivering for their chance to get out and express themselves. So the Buddha saw through this oneness and revealed an endless many-ness, though as well... this many-ness of interconnected things are each and equally empty of inherent existence, so Buddhist non-dual insight subscribes neither to one singular wholeness nor many-ness. This is also my own experience, having experienced the oneness many times through meditation, then having experienced Buddhist insight of emptiness going deeper into the illusion of oneness. I do not accept it.

Oh I listen. Taoism is a mixed bag and I do think many views that individuals have of certain Taoist texts can be integrated very well with Buddhism. But, the Tao De Ching... one of the main and foremost texts of Taoism I don't think can. You've admitted yourself to being a monist. Holding an eternalistic and realist view of the Tao. Which is fine. I just don't agree with this view. I more agree with GIH and Adepts view of the Tao... as merely a flow of interdependence. But, I don't think that the Tao De Ching agrees with me.

I think for the most part Taoism is a mixed bag with no definitive source of teaching, so one can indeed be Taoist and have this view. Though it really does appear that the Tao De Ching is ascribing to a monistic and transcendent source that all beings arise and return to. I do think this is one of the beautiful aspects of Taoism though which makes it more easily integrated with any point of spiritual reference for any individual. Buddhism on the other hand has very definitive points of view and the Buddha went into exhaustive explanation into how one should view his teaching in order to realize what he realized. As far as the ultimate view goes, the Buddha is the one and only first and last source of Buddhist teaching and he taught for 40 years, and he set out to create and new and individual religion that was different from all else on planet Earth at the time. All other forms of Buddhism have to reference his main body of teaching for authenticity. Taoism doesn't really have to do this. The Taoist teachers are famously vague and not nearly as talkative.

Actually yes, a monist bliss absorption into an overarching transcendent is a different experience from the bliss of insight into emptiness/dependent origination. It's very subtle, but since I've experienced both, I know based on direct experience. As well, plenty of Buddhist yogis talk about this in Vajrayana. There are many different types of bliss available to yogis of all different sorts dependent upon view and method.