Buddhayo

Conscious illumination. Interesting, I live in an area with lots of Hindu's and Indians. I am very nice to them and they are very nice to me, plus in my opinion. Indian food is the best food in the world, bar-none! The Indian market right down the street is a wonderful place to eat with great vegetarian Indian cooking!! YUM! Anywords, The Buddha described consciousness as part of the 12 links in dependent origination. When Consciousness becomes aware of the links, it blossoms in progressive degree's according to how deeply it inquires into self nature and finally extinguishes self grasping of any sort by delving deeply into the unconscious, even to beyond time and thought, which Vedanta considers the Turiya state, but they consider this state a recognition of an eternal basis beyond time and thought. While the Buddhists consider this just consciousness becoming aware of it's basis for ignorance of the 12 links and one starts seeing past lives and illuminating lots of connections and subtle abilities, but does not reify as a final reality of any sort. Consciousness is not inherent and a self of all according to the Buddha. Advaita would disagree with that, which is why they have a different definition of freedom from Samsara. To Buddhism it's not a non-conceptual view. Buddhism has always considered Consciousness a phenomena and has treated it as a phenomena.

I second this view and can validate it as true based on experience. All the best, Vajrahridaya

Nope, my understanding of Nagarjuna has been shown to be true by living Rinpoche's and a very good Loppon who's life is devoted to the study of Vajrayana and cultural context of it's history. So... you as someone who reads Hinduism into everything, has been proven wrong. When my understanding is in agreement with living Buddhist masters who studied all of Nagarjuna very intensely and did retreats for years. Then no matter what you assume. We know that assumption is baseless verbal fiction.

Vajrasattva, View in Buddhism is explained through concepts, but it's not merely concepts. If you were around the Dalai Lama, then you'd understand that he doesn't agree with you and thinks your wrong. The energy is the same, but how it's subtly comprehended changes the way it's utilized, and because, "right view" is the first of the 8 fold nobel path and directly intertwined with Vipassana which means insight, it transcends the idea that all it takes is going within to find the Truth. One needs "Right View" according to the Buddha as he showed that Jhana alone is not going to do it. The final comprehension of how the cosmos works is different, thus the realization is different. Your considering some non-conceptual ground to be the truth of all, thereby not having insight into how things work, including how conditioned meditation is without insight. Your taking emptiness as a view. That's very clear and reifying it. You don't understand dependent origination, because if you did, you'd realize that the entire universe is not going in one direction but infinite directions and that not all paths lead to the same place. realization is predicated upon view. This is not some concept, this is just how realization works in Buddhism. If you disagree, that's fine, but to think that all paths lead to the complete and total pacification of unconscious re-birth... you and the Buddha are not in agreement. I'm so overjoyed Michael!! I'm sooo happy to no end!! My eyes are all watery...

As has been explained to you. If you understood interdependent origination. You would realize that it is not really a framework, it's the pacification of all views. As well as the true way experiencing happens, both Samsaric and Nirvana. You have not yet understood interdependent co-dependent reality, which is all there is. You don't get Nagarjuna's logic at all. You take up emptiness as a view, or a ground of being that truly exists beyond the ALL.

You are still holding the view that there is an eternal, beyond time, featureless consciousness that is behind everything, that is the true nature of everything. That is a view... no matter how non-conceptual you experience this as. This is a flawed view according to the Buddha that just leads to a long lived bliss realm, or a formless realm. You should study more Buddhism with a Buddhist master before you start to think you know what your talking about when it comes to Buddhism. I know where your blocked, because I was blocked in that same way for quite some time and it took 2 years of debate and meditative experience before I finally realized the subtle difference that was all the difference between the edge of Samsara and the experience of Nirvana. Nirvana is not an existent, it's a realization of inter-dependent-origination, which has nothing to do with superimposition over a non-conceptual ground of all.

You are mistaking the conscious experience of the empty nature of things where consciousness expands past concepts, things and time as an eternal state of being. You are misunderstanding your experience. Which is the Buddhas big issue with Jhana without Vapassana, which is insight. You have meditation, but not insight, which has everything to do with dependent origination, which you have yet to understand, no matter how many times it has been clarified. You don't understand how much your experience is conditioned by your view.

Emptiness is thought of in that way as well, as the quality of dependent origination/impermanence's infinite potentiality.

Actually yes, the I-Ching is said to be very, very old. I do so love the I-Ching... I find great wisdom through it's words... I'm due another throw in fact with my girlfriend having moved in just a few days ago. Yes, could be. Your description of the Tao as just being an endless sideways flow of co-emergent phenomina, which means that even formless states of consciousness are also inherently without self as well but mutually dependent upon other causes and conditions. That concept-less-ness is dependent on the fact of concepts or forms and etc. Eh, I'm quite satisfied with your last explanation that there is more to the Tao being a name for dependent origination than I thought. I started thinking, duh it's in the symbol of Yin and Yang, being mutually dependent by showing that each is also in the other. I just always interpreted this as a subtle samkhya where there is a subtle but intermingling dualism between matter and spirit. But, if there is co-emergence in it's systematic break down, making Tao nothing at all really, but a word to describe the endless process of mutually relatedness... Then emptiness might truly be understood, not as an abiding nature, but merely a quality of all experiencing. This is a revelation for me! Thank you all for this wonderful argument!! I'm happy!!

I applaud your cleverness evZENy...

Hmmm! this is a good description and gives credence to possibly how much Taism is influenced by Buddhism. Which I have no problem with. Maybe you guys do attain Buddhahood?

Your not understanding that beyond concepts is a reification of an existent in the mind stream that causes and anchoring and a seed, a non-conceptual seed that is sooo subtle. It has nothing to do with concepts, it has to do with the experience being pointed to through the symbols. There is attachment to this... "beyond concepts". Which Buddhism never makes the mistake of doing, except a bit in Zen I think. The non-conceptual is not enlightenment for that is dependent. There is no attachment to concepts, and no attachment to non-concepts, or beyond concepts. There must be full integration of all aspects of being from formless to form with the realization, they must be mutually reflective in a seamless fashion. Of course, if we could all just gather chairs, sit around and stare at each other and transmit our realization to each other through imagery and color patterns... that'd be pretty cool. But... alas... here we are, staring at a computer screen and the only way it seems we know how to communicate the subtleties of spiritual truths is through this dense word format. Both non-conceptual and conceptual are equally empty of inherent existence and without abiding nature.

I thought of the Tulku tradition after I posted my comment. You are absolutely correct in all your points. I stand corrected. But, what I mostly mean is that the view is the same, of course it evolved in expression. But, as well, I would love to have someone as qualified as the Dalai Lama as my president!!

Yes, but still seems to be an independent source, a subtle essence, etc. Is the Tao dependent? Are you talking about Right View or just any view? My non-realization of the Right View is based on the fact that I have realization of the Wrong View. So, since there are no eternal moments of consciousness, for a practitioner, this can oscillate depending upon causes and conditions of how well I'm keeping the view through making the right links, based on previously making the right links add infinitum. But... Right view always exists because there are always Buddhas in one universe or another who's consciousness has uncompounded and shines all around, regardless of my recognition of his or her liberated qualities. Thanks Meson for your insight! It's much appreciated. The thing is, is that the Tao is always discussed as The flow, or, "That" which cannot be named, etc. It's seems to be a self existent that all is and wouldn't hold up to Buddha's scrutiny. Nirvana in Buddhism is a realization, not a ground of being that is both transcendent as beyond words and eminent that all things are merely formations of. Making it a non-dual oneness. Neither static, nor dynamic, but both and simultaneous. Basically, Monism. I like you Uncle.

finite ecstasies bliss ignited by insight see emptiness of