Sunya

Ms Serene. that is wonderful! I rejoice at your natural inclination for selflessness Nirvana is simply pure vision, seeings things as they are and acting with that realization. There is no one that becomes enlightened rather the stream of continuous actions (mindstream) becomes more in accordance with the metaphysical reality. This is possible because of Buddha Nature, which is simply that the condition of all is emptiness. since your condition is emptiness there is always the potentiality for you to relax into your nature and have that realization. I too have wondered how realization can be possible but it really just comes down to that.

in Buddhist orgies there are beings from the 6 realms, you ever fuck a God?

lol u guys are funny.

yes Vajra and are I are dating, because that is the only possible explanation for 2 people having the same views and practicing the same tradition. All Buddhists date actually, and we have orgies all the time... like that movie Eyes Wide Shut except we don't wear masks.

of course.

we can only speak from experience I have too

no i've wondered that too. so many similarities..

i'm glad you don't take me too seriously, btw Nietszche was a monist!! did you know?? it's true! I was shocked.. thinking he was a nihilistic materialist,, but no! Will To Power sounds a lot like Tao

thank you Vaj, that's very kind of you to say. after I understood the true meaning 'emptiness', all your posts started to make sense. I think that since most people see emptiness as some sort of essence or even a 'blank nothingness', they may not understand because they filter what you say through their own limited views. and of course, its always easier to attack the person instead of having a meaningful discussion with them. I think a lot of the people who do that just come here to receive entertainment and pleasure.. and not out of a sense of learning and evolving. When their views are challenged, they don't receive pleasure and so they lash out with anger.. and that anger gives some pleasure too as it affirms the "I'.

its always wonderful to have another sarcastic twit on the Tao Bums, seriously what is it about this place that attracts these people?

i'm not trying to sound wise, its apparently evident that your ego is hanging out of your pocket. Did you come here to prove something? yes thank you for sharing that, Bon doesn't have a valid history but it does have methods and these methods are practically identical to Buddhism. Namkhai Norbu wrote a book on Bon actually. oh the hurdles that the ego will jump through just to validate itself thanks for the laughs 'booktreasure', maybe your pride comes from reading too many books and thinking that they actually contain treasure? I do hope you realize knowledge is not wisdom

I understand that its easier to attack than to have a good meaningful discussion. I don't blame you since emotions sure are tough to get beyond. but really, I urge you to wake up from this delusion that anger and pride are really getting you anywhere... oh btw, my idol is Namkhai Norbu. I also really like a couple of other figures. none of whom post here Vajra is very clear and of course I agree with his understanding, as it is far above mine. calling his words 'repulsive dhamma preaching' is completely baseless especially when you have no clue what you're talking about. You gotta learn to be more skillful.

well that is Buddhism, from the Pali Suttas to the Mahayana Tantras to Dzogchen, all are skillful means in realizing that all-encompassing condition. There is nothing separate from phenomena or behind it, infact phenomena (form) is emptiness. So of course the condition of phenomena is all encompassing; it's not reductionist because the relative is still important, hence the emphasis on compassion. What is the rainbow body? it's having infinite skill and means to help all beings, in any form, so of course the relative is important. but the realization of the all encompassing condition has to be realized.

does studying with a teacher for years give you the necessary credentials to understand them and their tradition? isn't it possible that even studying with a teacher for years could leave you utterly baseless? isn't it possible that you can carry your conditioning and assumptions with you and project that onto a tradition thus leaving you with no real understanding of it? Of course to enter the primordial state you do not need any knowledge, since the state is pointed out to you. Rigpa is completely beyond concepts. This is a fact. but to integrate that state and have proper interpretation you need understanding of emptiness. Rinpoche says this himself in Crystal Way. I don't remember where but he says that its assumed in Dzogchen before you even begin that you have understanding of dependent origination, that all phenomena lack inherent true existence. It is said that Dzogchen is beyond culture and religion, this is true. Dzogchen is the culmination of the spiritual path and is not solely the effect of any 'ism', since in other world systems there are Dzogchen masters and they have other paths to reach this culmination, and these paths are of different cultures. But in this world system, on Earth, Rinpoche has made it clear that Dzogchen is achieved through Buddhist method only. It is also sort of a political thing to say that, because of Bon, which only recently has been considered a school of Tibetan Buddhism. Bon has Dzogchen but isn't 'Buddhist' per say, but the method and philosophy of Bon was taken from Buddhism and its basically identical. Dzogchen literally is the Great Perfection, which is the Natural State, or the condition of all phenomena, and is not separate from Shunyata or Emptiness. It is a different word for the same. Rigpa is primordial purity (emptiness) and spontaneous presence (luminosity), emptiness and luminosity are not separate, actually.

it's a bit silly to consider yourself a student of Dzogchen and not even understand the basic Buddhist teachings of karma. karma is far from 'original sin', it's merely the current conditions created by previous causes. there's ultimately nobody to blame for these actions since its just repeated patterns with no do-er. smugness is an interesting pattern, it's like this little illusory self actually thinks he knows something a pattern based on a pattern, conditioning based on conditioning. layer after layer after layer. like an onion. I..I....I..............I...................I.....I..II..IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII where?

vJ42SqtLlLE

seems like my little pup is done for. 15 year old cocker spaniel, has been losing energy/will to live for a wh ile. I don't blame him.. sickly existence being an animal. I hated seeing how for the past couple years his only real desire was to eat food; now that desire has lost its touch and it seems he's given up. plus his body is failing and he isn't going to survive long. doesn't eat or drink much. doesn't really move. barely responds to touch.. i don't live at my parents place anymore but I visit and seeing him is hard; i know he is suffering. my parents see it everyday and tell me how they have to feed him, carry him, and how he suffers all the time. the Doc says they don't know how long he has and he might have cancer again. i've said mantras to him a couple times, and made the intent to form a connection with him until I attain enlightenment when I can help him, but till then what can I really do.. so they are thinking of putting him to sleep... it will definitely ease his suffering and that is the sole intent of my parents. they don't want to see him suffer anymore. if he continues to not eat or drink his kidneys will fail and then things won't be good. I don't know how I feel about this. on the one hand, I think easing of suffering is a wonderful intent to have; it is truly compassionate.. but is killing him the right answer? or should nature run its course? Is killing with compassionate intent OK? or is killing in any form wrong because it involves a conscious act of harm, even for compassionate purposes. Any thoughts or opinions?

thank you everyone. I certainly appreciate the responses.. and I do feel that what is proper is to make a decision with compassionate intent. As a human, I wouldn't want to be euthanized... but since I'm a human that allows me to make a decision. A dog has no rational faculty and has no understanding of such concepts. As the parents, we have to make a decision for the dog... and all the really nice responses here truly helped me realize that it is our responsibility to make that decision. Karmically the dog is suffering, but I think compassionate intent to help stop that suffering is a good thing, and is not interfering with 'natural' processes. What can I do though besides just support my parents in their decision? I am thinking of meditating at the exact time when it will happen, and say mantras with the intent to send Charlie's (my dog's) consciousness to a higher rebirth, specifically human, so that he can attain realization. I think that's the best I can do...

Nac! thank you! i've been reading that article and its truly amazing, wonderful, incredible! i don't know why i'm so excited... but its exactly what i've been looking for, and what i've been thinking about recently. the explanation of stage 2 to stage 3 is so crucial to understanding Buddhism and why negation is important. I had a crazy argument today during class with my Mysticism professor, who is incredibly arrogant; I feel he's at stage 2. I used a metaphor about all beings being waves in the ocean, just to illustrate a point about Monist thinking.. I wasn't arguing against it. and he started railing on me: 'Who's ocean is it' ? and I kept saying there can be no 'Who' because subject and object are both manifestations of the ocean. Now what he was doing was collapsing the Ocean and the subject into One Grand Being, the Big Dreamer, the Godhead..and then identifying with that. so thus, I am You, I am ALL! and I argued incessantly against this, and made great points, but the guy is so full of pride that he would cut me off and intentionally try to embarrass me; he felt threatened. A problem of attachment, big time. so that site is really relevant because the jump from stage 2 to stage 3 is exactly the most difficult journey, and believing in any real essence will prevent that realization from happening.

well i'm interested in all points of view, not just Buddhist. and i'm worried about all parties. the effects on my dog, and my parents who make the decision. thank you for your post

Singularity is an extreme. you are boxing and limiting the non-conceptual Secret; Singularity is a concept, an idea, and it carries baggage with it. All concepts are limiting in the process of attaining wisdom, I think it's better to not try to describe the Ultimate at all and simply stick to negating ideas that we have; ideas that we hold very dear to be true.. foremost I think the idea of 'Oneness' should be utterly negated as it carries so much with it. A sense of grasping is inevitable 'I AM That' or, if you're of a different style, a need to dissolve yourself and disappear. 'become That'. both I see as false ways stemming from this concept of Oneness, Sameness, Singularity. When you are stuck in a view, you will not truly realize the viewless view. That is why I propose the need to not get stuck in any view and simply negate all views as proper by a method such as Madhyamaka reasoning or Via Negativa, or 'neti neti' (but forget about Brahman, negate that too) -.-

a better question for Descartes would be, as Nietzsche rightly pointed out, pertaining to the statement "I think therefore I am", where is this I? Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil passage 16 specifically to Descartes stating 3 important claims that cannot be established when analyzing the statement "I think", first that I am the one who is thinking, that there is a thinker in the first place, and there is an assumption that the process 'thinking' is properly understood. I think he makes good points.. and this can be very easily seen when you try to stop thinking. If you are the thinker then you can stop thinking and control thoughts, but you can't. Hume also dissected the self. So the I is really the one asking these questions, making this intellectual leap of seeing that the inner representational world does not truly reflect the vast beyond that exists, but the dualistic mind falsely tries to understand the nonunderstandable; like seeking darkness with a flash light. I think that this is important to understand when asking questions of phenomena [mind stuff] and noumena [whatever exists independent of observance]. Kant analyzed this and said that nouemana can't even be spoken of because to bring about a concept is to create phenomena and thus no longer be about noumena. This quote seems to lead Kant to the Buddhist conclusion though he calls it absurd "...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears." This is the Buddhist conclusion that there are appearances but they are empty, illusory, yet very real; like a mirage. Also Buddhism analyzes the apparent subject/object dichotomy and instead of jumping to the extreme of both don't exist or the other extreme of both are one, Buddhist philosophy says they are interdependent and lack 'self-nature'. There is no duality. There is no 'thing in itself'. I don't know about Western philosophy but according to Buddhism it takes wisdom, not knowledge, to truly understand the nature of things and to get wisdom one must receive insight, and that takes proper methodology. Philosophy can be used as a tool to cut through conceptual clinging when combined with meditation, but philosophy in and of itself cannot lead to wisdom because philosophy is in the realm of thought. The fact that wisdom exists is due to your true nature being emptiness; you are simply opening up to your true nature that exists and has always existed. A quality of your true nature is wisdom much like a quality of an apple is sweetness. If you were an apple and you relaxed into that appleness, you would become sweetness. The same goes for wisdom.

Drew, your friend is using the sources of the original Nikayas, which are wonderful.. but it must be understood that from the perspective of Mahayana/Vajrayana, the original teachings of the Buddha in 500BC were very limited due to the people he was teaching to, he had to teach the Dharma to people who were all about grasping to an eternal self, due to Vedic conditioning, and so Buddha did indeed posit an eternal undying, but what he was referring to was a condition with no source. I would suggest to your friend to look into Tibetan sources as they are very clear in their view and understanding, they were basically taught by Indian Mahasiddhas, masters, like Shantarakshita, Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche), Naropa, etc. Nargarjuna is also considered a great Mahasiddha from India who founded the Madhyamaka school [Middle Way] which focused on Sunyata. It is from him that we see a much clearer view than from the Buddha, though the Buddha was fully enlightened, the people he taught to were very limited and so he had to sort of 'dumb' things down. Every teaching was for a selected audience and only later were the teachings written down by the monks, the audience itself not being reflected in the teachings. He taught differently depending on your karma. This is skillful and compassionate means. Even the Buddha cannot make you enlightened if the conditions aren't there. During Nagarjuna's time the conditions were more ripe, and even more so during the time of Garab Dorje and Guru Rinpoche . So that is why I suggest to study Mahayana view rather than the original Pali suttas simply because those teachings are more liberated due to good conditions on our part. The Mahayana view does indeed speak of Emptiness as unborn and undying but very subtly; and there is an implicit understanding of what emptiness is, and is not.The Brahman of Advaita is not the Brahman that the Buddha spoke of, because that Brahman did not exist yet. It was only until Sankara that Advaita came about and it was then that Brahman was spoken of as Nirguna Brahman or without form or quality. But if you understand the subtlety of the following passage you cannot miss that this is different than Sunyata: Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness. So Nirguna Brahman is seen as a static unchanging background that is without form while Sunyata is seen as the condition of form itself; this is subtly different. Since form is seen as interdependent but not the same, Buddhism is free of the extreme of monism. I checked out your blog and I find your posts very interesting. you get into a lot of detail that I've never even considered and a lot of it is over my head as I have no technical knowledge of much of what you say. I'm not very scientific so it's nice to get a new perspective. so thank you for sharing that