Sunya

HI Drew. Dependent origination is the conceptual framework dissolver that is unique only to the tradition passed down by the Buddha. Now, every Buddhist tradition may differ on the outside, and have different methodology and emphasization but they all contain the teachings of emptiness, or dependent origination, which is seen as absolutely necessary to kill subtle clinging to wrong views. In terms of meditation, the traditions differ... though it seems that every Buddhist tradition starts off with some sort of jhana or shamata meditation, which is concentrating on an object, then there is objectless awareness type meditation which is akin to vipassana or shikantaza or mahamudra. this meditation is not a 'formless' meditation because the goal is not a dissolution of form, a disappearance of everything into a state of nothingness... rather the goal is to relax the mind and observe everything that arises without judgment/craving. this experience gives insight to anatta and dependent origination as the subtle dependencies and conditions are seen. Vajrayana has all these but also employs workings on the subtle body. So the ultimate meditation in Buddism has no object at all, rather there is simple observance. And all experiences are interpreted through the teachings of dependent origination because these experiences are simply that, experiences. and until actual insight arises, the framework dissolver is necessary. This insight is of Shunyata, Emptiness, Dependent origination and is seen as the 'condition' of everything, but this does not mean that everything is the same, that I am You or You are That. This line of thinking is seen by all Buddhists as extremist and of fantasy. It is only the aggrandizing of a super Ego and identifying with that Ego. So that is why the insight of the condition of all phenomena (including the mindstream) is seen as the insight necessary for liberation and that's it, not going further to attach and get idealistic about metaphysics. Advaita has negation but they don't negate far enough, they negate negate negate and then say AHA! That is Self! Sat Chit Ananda! Buddhists say: No. That experience simply arose because of causes and conditions and it is temporary. It isn't permanent. Buddhists always negate because to posit is to give reality and substance which automatically gives rise to clinging and suffering. Even the state of Sat Chit Ananda is seen as suffering because its impermanent; due to subtle clinging to a grand Self that state is impermanent. It took me a while to accept this because I for a time was very fond of learning from Advaita teachers, being myself initiated into Nityananda's lineage. But now I can only hope that these wonderful beings will learn the Dharma when the conditions arise [which they will] You don't have to agree with what I say, i'm just stating the Buddhist position for you as clearly as possible because I know its hard to get a clear view if you read books by teachers like Nan, no offense to any students of him here but like I said before I don't think he presents Buddhism clearly and accurately.

Drew, i'm not trying to get into a "male mental masturbatory" debate with you, I just think that important matters should be clear and discerned. state things as they are. I simply suggest that you look more deeply. I personally trust the views of real Buddhist teachers not scholars. Tibetans generally have a good view not only because of their philosophical training but meditative experience. Now I don't have time to respond to everything... but I think the most important thing I can say to you is that I adhere to the view, which accords with my reasoning, that rationality is a tool, and a necessary one. The non-conceptual is defined by the conceptual as the boat must be directed in the right direction and cared or. The boat is there; we cannot ignore it. To dispose of the boat is to sink and drown in the waters; this is not seen as enlightenment in any school of Buddhism which stresses the utmost importance of proper philosophical view. see my post in 'ego and thought' thread about prerational/transrational fallacy. so I say this because it seems you hold concepts as limiting and useless, which I see as wrong; they are necessary. I also say this because if you don't understand this, you will not understand why Buddhism differs and does not agree with other non-dual traditions. as for Master Nan, no I don't recommend him. I've read some of his works and think there are better sources out there. I don't know if its Bill Bodri that distorts the books or not, but if not then Nan does not present proper Buddhism. Emptiness is not a state of pure awareness, pure awareness is itself empty. emptiness is not awareness, emptiness is the condition, true nature, of everything including awareness/consciousness. this is why Buddhism differs than your presentation because pure awareness is not the end goal.. rather the emptiness of that pure awareness; emptiness meaning... no self nature.. awareness is dependently originated. see this for further clarification... very well written. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...-vis-hindu.html I would suggest that blog in general as a great source of information if you are interested in understanding more about Buddhism.

i'd like to suggest a book! It's content revolves around "death" and "fear" and the author makes the point that our biggest and ultimate fear is the fear of non-duality.. the fear that there is truly no subject, that there is no ego. no "I". He uses Western and Eastern sources. David Loy -- Lack and Transcendence: The Problem of Death and Life in Psychotherapy, Existentialism, and Buddhism Amazon also, Dr Loy has another book simply termed 'Non-Duality- which seems very interesting. his sources being primarily Taoist, Buddhist, and Advaita but he seeks to unify all positions using modern language. Amazon

Interesting post Drew, but the quotes I highlighted above are misrepresentations of Buddhism; you need more study if you're going to try to draw such a broad comparison between the two traditions. firstly, a historical and scriptural study if you want to somehow prove that Buddhism is an extension of 'Advaita' (when Advaita school didn't even exist until the 8th century AD) secondly you'll need to speak with more Buddhist practitioners and do a more broad analysis of the goals of Buddhism if you want to see whether or not the goal of Buddhism is the 'real pure formless realm of pure consciousness (which it's not) and also whether or not 'full body orgasms' even matter to Buddhists (they don't, this has nothing to do with Buddhist enlightenment). Also a deeper historical study would be required if you want to see whether it's true or not that Tibetans objectify females as the "best life-force source" (this is a complete misrepresentation of Tantra as there is no life force 'source', diety is a representation of your true nature)

thank you for the post Mat, very insightful!

damn that wasn't real? that was amazing!!.. haahah

All of Buddhism is a means, a path, to realizing these questions, or rather the futility of these questions.. so I would kindly suggest that instead of continuing these questions, rather question who is questioning? Since we are all of the same condition, and that condition has the aspect of pure knowing, or wisdom, then to know the method is to simply relax and get in touch with your true nature. you are the truth that you seek.

Vajra is a busy guy. we rarely speak now actually. both quite busy but him especially. he's far from a troll, and he started a pretty interesting thead recently on E-Sangha actually and there was really no arguments... everything he says is basically established Buddhism. http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...=93578&st=0 but anyway, I don't know who you are, and it seems like you're just trying to get involved in the mud slinging. so I can just show you the door and assure you that it's better for you to walk back out but you won't take my advice;you already have pre-conceived notions, so enjoy your time in the fray I guess. keep circling that karma around.

lol furthest from the truth. I oppose any drama as its ridiculous. examine your reason for posting here, examine your intent. what's the point of it? what's the purpose? what are you trying to gain? it's all selfish nonsense. argumentative dramatic bullshit. I feel good about bringing Vajra here as I feel many have gained from the exchange, but the few drama queens who can't let go of their emotions I feel pretty bad about. they just cocoon'd up even more.

Songs, don't you have any other masks other than Taoist Crusader ? damn you took out your Lebowski quote. I had a good one too. I think Vajra presents Buddhism very accurately, as does Xabir and several others here. you just find his attitude threatening. "engaged Buddhism" is interesting and worthwhile but really the core of Buddhism is mystical; experiential insight, not trying to put lipstick on samsara. All Buddhists are trained that real change happens within first, so change yourself then change the world. If you want to learn about Buddhism go on E-Sangha, but then again you were the one to say how its so terrible over there and elitist, and you got banned, so really the issue is with you and serious Buddhism, not the kind of fluff you'll read in books. Most books won't tell you flat out the things that Vajra is saying, you've gotta figure that out for yourself. maybe thats the problem Hari, you're giving too much away. we need more fluff here.

No. please read my posts above. there is no such thing as Infinite Self as All That Is [in Buddhism] or, better yet. go check out the 20 page thread of Advaita vs Buddhism which discusses the problems of attaching "Self" to "All That Is" and why Buddhism sees this as a mistake and does not lead to liberated view

hey serene, i don't know how I have this idea in my head, maybe I read somewhere in your practice journal where you mentioned it? but i've thought about this for the past couple days and want to get some opinions. the validity of spiritual guides in an objective sense. so i'm taking an upper level philosophy class focused on mysticism taught by a physicist/philosopher who sees minds as separate. what he says is pretty interesting. when you experience reality, for example visually, the eyes receive light and that light is transferred to information (no light actually travels to the brain) and that information is then transformed into "Reality", the same goes for all the senses. It is not known how that transformation happens (pure information into a phenomenal world), nor is it known if that subjective phenomenal world is the same as the 'Objective' world. nor is it known if my phenomenal world is the same as your phenomenal world. so.... i'm thinking that if everything you experience is your own world then anything you experience is inside that world including visions and out of body experiences and spiritual guides. none of that is 'outside' your mind. it's all within your phenomenal world. so we are all just separate interdependent phenomenal worlds (minds) now for the case of Gurus.. we have experiences sometimes where the teacher comes to visit in dreams, or visions, and sends us energy or gives us teaching. but is that separate from us? now I have no doubt that its possible for a teacher to visit your dreams and convey a message, or to do it during the waking state, but I also think its equally as plausible to say that the teacher is just the outside form and during a vision can just be a representation/manifestation of your own inherent wisdom, a quality of your true nature. what do u guys think?

Hi OMC, I understand what you mean, and its an interesting question. I can only tell you what the Buddhist view is of this.. there is no such thing as 'Universal God' in Buddhism. nor is there anything that is Universal Compassion or Universal Beauty of Awe or any of those things. What you speak of do exist in nature, that cannot be questioned, but only on an individual level. Each being is driven towards compassion because it is more in-line with the metaphysical truth of reality, that we are all interdependent and acting selfishly is painful to everyone. but there does not exist a Universal compassion. Each being is driven to see beauty in everything but this beauty does not exist anywhere as a universal. this Impulse that you speak of that is inherent in nature is a concept that does not exist in any Buddhist teachings. nor is there anything close to a 'center of the Cosmos'. according to Buddhist masters there is no center of the cosmos nor is there no source to reality; to think otherwise is to live in fantasy. the Buddha did not become part of anything, he merely realized what already is. he merely opened his eyes. he didn't 'become' anything because the enlightened state is not manufactured or created. conscious and unconscious are relative, aren't they? if you never slept and never died.. would you still be 'conscious' ? the awakened being simply is. but yes the buddha is an individual being but his actions are completely spontaneous...not as a rule of nature but because of his compassion and will. 'nature' is not a thing or grand machine that we are all cogs of.. at least not in the Buddhist sense. nature is just an idea; a concept, that cannot be found if you look for it.

I take these, contains a lot more than a multi vitamin. probiotics, amino acids, whole food extracts... check them out. I take them daily with fish oil http://www.vitacost.com/Natures-Way-Alive-...ded-180-Tablets and btw its 6$ for 1 bottle which has 15 days worth. oh and i drink Kombucha daily and it is great

as for the argument about Buddha existing or not after enlightenment -- check out this article by the DL http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archi...at_is_self.html my opinion is that the Theravada only speaks of the gross level of mind which has to do with identity and form. so you could say that the Buddha ceased existing after death.. but according to Mahayana there are deeper levels of mind that the Pali Suttas do not speak of, and the subtlest nature of mind does continue after enlightenment; this subtlest nature is pure and empty and does not depend on ignorance for its existence. whether the Buddha was God or not depends on your definition of God. since the traditional meaning of God is ultimate creator and supreme being then no Buddha is not God. but if you mean that God is an eternal being that has infinite compassion, wisdom, and can manifest any form whatsoever, then yea... i'd say Buddha is God, but not THE God, just one of infinite # of Gods, he merely realized his own nature, which is inherent to all beings haha i got my room mate into BSG so re-watching it with him. frakkin cylons!

my gods some of you people need to start watching Lost or some other show to get your drama fix battlestar galactica is really good... srsly. check it out.

"There are no universal truths" isn't that itself a universal truth?

once you're part of a legit enlightened lineage, you're protected and don't have to worry about any entities

LOL. biggest ego of them all talking about ego, Vajra is having great conversation IMO and stating good stuff, engaging stuff, and not everyone gets defensive and weird, though these sort of people tend to ruin the threads. btw speaking of ego, when are you going to contribute anything that isn't about you or how you feel? have you ever actually helped anybody here? ego.. i don't know why I keep repeating it, if you don't like this conversation don't participate, there are other threads going down. its strange how some people only really participate when there is argument going on, but when there is actual conversation they are silent. then they butt in and try to steer the conversation into argument because they can't stand it. very strange to me. we have explained time and time again how this isn't just repeating doctrine or propoganda, i have went into detail before about how logically it makes sense that view must precede proper realization. and its flawed to think you simply must 'let go' of all beliefs and you will be granted infinite wisdom.. but really it seems pointless because the same people keep coming back and spouting strange conspiracy theories and bringing negativity with them. that is karma I guess. these two statements are at odds. if you were born with a blank slate then that means that all your experiences therefore have defined who you are, your characteristics, your personality, etc. it's like saying you go into an amusement park which already has a finite # of rides and food and paths, but you have the 'free will' to choose which ones to go on. is that really free will? but I don't particularly hold the view of tabula rasa. I think it was a nice counter argument to the pure nature folks who view human characteristics as something unchangeable that you're born with, but its just going in the other extreme. it's pretty obvious I think that some people are born with bad tendencies and some are not so. environment isn't everything as there are real gems who grow up in really bad conditions

I had to uninstall and reinstall an older version, here is one that works: http://www.filehippo.com/download_skype/3767/

the comment that you either know or you don't? lol mmm ok.. settle down now Chang. maybe it's best you don't participate if you're getting so defensive. it's obvious you're attached to your beliefs.

i'm perfectly happy posting on both forums, thank you. there are many Buddhists here and this forum isn't strictly for Taoists as the main page says. this was pointed out to you before a couple times, so I don't get why you keep trying to kick people out of here. you don't speak for the community. if you don't want to participate in a discussion then don't. this would probably be for the best since you never really contribute anyway. maybe that's why you respond with such anger, hostility, and sarcasm all the time? maybe you should log back in to jesusfreak and show us all how amazing you are at insulting people?

so the Tao is not just the process of change/flow. its actually the name given to the All, the grand Whole. Everything. the Tao then is no different than the Hindu Brahman. there is nothing beyond Shunyata as emptiness is the condition of all phenomena, to go further is to cross the red line. there is no Grand whole according to Buddhism. there is no Birds eye view. there is infinity. lhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_point Buddhists do not take the position that such a point exists