Sunya

oh ok... didn't realize others had interest in this discussion.

Buddha nature is not an entity that is aware, its just the potentiality for enlightenment. for the TENTH TIME. There is no Ocean as an Absolute reference to reality, only in a metaphorical sense to describe the 'wetness' of the web of interdependent phenomena. Buddhism does not say that waves don't exist, that only the ocean does, because there is no such water that is the essence of all reality. this is a Hindu view and is not compatible with Buddhism. the 'wetness' or 'One taste' spoken of describes the condition of emptiness that all phenomena share, but there is no essence, or water, that permeates all of reality. You can say theres an ocean, but there is no water, every wave is unique but interdependent, and what the waves have in common are the condition of wetness. i'm done here, and Vajra you should quit too. he's just teasing us. he doesn't read our replies, and says the same things over and over again. He isn't genuinely interested in learning. why waste time with someone that isn't sincere?

I meant what I said about Siddhartha not existing anymore because he truly is gone since there is no eternal self that is "Siddhartha". the karmas of the individual are forever gone because they have been transcended and are no longer repeated. the Siddhartha that we are talking about only exists as a continuation of wisdom and compassion. I think.

No Dwai, and this is what the Buddhists on this board have been trying to tell you. Buddhism is not a conceptual framework aimed at realizing the same insights as other religions. Buddhism is a finger that is pointing to a completely different moon, and without that finger you do not see that moon. since you are so hung up on an another finger, a finger that you were brought up with and thats part of your cultur eand identity, its very hard to break free of that finger and see that there are different moons. This is actually what is necessary to realize... the realization of the moon depends upon the finger because right fruit is preceded by right view. and there is a difference between 'recognizing' the dharma and 'realizing' the dharma. one can recognize the dharma by contemplating the philosophy logically, and one realizes the dharma through meditation. recognition is necessary before realization. now Buddhists are all about skillful means and the Buddha taught different to different audiences because people have different karmas. the sutras you really like were aimed at people who dig the True Self stuff so it has that nice eternalistic sugar coating but beneath all that, Mahayana is as Buddhist as Theravada with its Anatta. It's completely wrong to take quotes from one sutra and think you know the truth of Buddha's teachings and ignore the rest. If you really dig that sutra thats great, but don't forget about the context, and don't forget about the other sutras too. but you don't care about learning, you're only here to argue. you're only here to try to change our minds because you already 'know' that you're right. you're so deeply attached to your beliefs that it would take someone throwing you off a cliff to make you believe in gravity. insights are received but filtered through karmas and the conscious mind interprets those insights based on your unconscious beliefs. you have no received non-conceptual insights because you have deeply held beliefs. I'm sorry does it not make sense to you that there are deeply held beliefs and karmas and that these karmas affect your interpretation of insights/experience? He died in 500 B.C. right this minute there is no such being as Siddhartha Gautama. depending on which school of Buddhism you like more, Siddhartha was either a man who attained enlightenment (Theravada school) or an already enlightened being who emanated a Nirmanakaya, or physical, body to teach beings Dharma where there was no longer any Dharma (Mahayana and Vajrayana school)

you really are thickheaded Dwai, it's as if you don't read any of the countless responses patiently written for you. I suggest you find a new hobby or something. maybe learn some violin?

Dark Zen is a big joke. this one guy Kenneth Wheeler i think is his name started it, or maybe someone else. but kenneth is def involved. he carouses around internet groups and argues against people calling them "demons" and basically acts like a huge prick, its really funny actually. he'll argue against you and then say something like "you're so pathetic, NEXT!" hahaha. but their main thing is that they have one interpretation of the teachings of the Buddha, a really orthodox translation, where certain words are mistranslated and taken out of context and Buddhism is made to be an eternal Self teaching. Rahula actually spent a couple pages in What the Buddha Taught addressing the issue of people trying to throw the Self into the Buddhas teachings in "What the Buddha Taught" and says its just taking words out of context / mis translation / misunderstanding. the latest victim of Kenneth Wheeler's bullshit is the Amazon Buddhist forum, he's been on there for weeks copy and pasting his articles about Buddha teaching an eternal Atman.

I wouldn't even consider Dark Zen a school of Buddhism, its just an internet phenomenon created by people who cling to an eternal Self and try to fit Buddhism in there and claim they have the 'original and true Buddhism' and go around vehemently arguing against Buddhists who actually understand Dharma. yes we study Buddhism to get laid, you got it. now run off, I think you'd find more in common with people on the PUA forums at fastseduction

very important ^ but also, one should look into the teachings of Buddha Nature and compare that with Atman. and note the difference between the two statements Everyone has Buddha Nature Atman is the true self, Atman is Brahman, Everyone/everything is Brahman The nature of all phenomena is void and emptiness from beginningless time, but all sentient beings have Buddha Nature which is the inner potentiality to realize their true nature of voidness. Everything is Brahman. I really don't see the similarity... the True Self of Mahayana is the potentiality for enlightenment. and after enlightenment in Mahayana, one does see all beings as having Buddha nature, and one does see, on another level, that all of reality is a dance of energies, but.. one never stops seeing that people are suffering from their own side. How does Advaita address that? My understanding is that after realization of Brahman, the individuals that we experience are seen as Brahman and their suffering really doesn't matter because its all a play. the Absolute level of Brahman is the only reality, as Maharshi says: Brahman alone is real. but Buddhism, all schools, never says that Emptiness or Dharmakaya alone is real. and people will always suffer from their own side, so enlightenment is actually reaching the zenith of compassion and skillful activity to help all beings. Being never disappear and stop suffering in Buddhism. the Relative never stops. Nirvana is Samsara.

"Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness". -- Candrakīrti -- Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7 Why is it so hard to just accept that Buddhism does not have an atman or Brahman? As the belief in ātman is identified as a cause of saṃsāra, it is not merely cognate with the various concepts of ātman as found in Hindu philosophy, and indeed the specific identification of what ātman is, is an essential philosophical concept for the Buddhist meditator. If no concept of ātman were to exist at all, then we would all be naturally free from saṃsāra. What this entails is that ātman is identified as existing as a concept - more specifically, as a cognitive obscuration; moreover, it is this specific cognitive obscuration which is identified as being the root cause of all suffering. So, when Buddhists claim that there is no ātman, they are not really saying that it does not exist, but that it exists solely as a cognitive obscuration - as an innate response to the world around us; and this deeply enmeshed obscuration lies at the root of all misery. What Buddha talks about in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras as Eternal, Pure, and Unchanging is the Dharmakaya or Body of Truth. This is basically the realization of Emptiness, as Emptiness is the base of all Beings since all Beings are empty. but this Emptiness is not an essence it is a condition, and the Buddha never says that no phenomena exists since it is only Emptiness that exists as an unchanging eternal essence that Is everything. So Dharmakaya is not equal to Brahman at all because Buddha never teaches monism. It is important to understand that this sutra is Mahayana and comparing it to Theravada is comparing two systems with the same core, but of completely different method. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra without the teachings of Dependent Origination and Emptiness is a Hindu Atman teaching. Since you do not understand what the basic teachings of Buddhism are, you will only see this advanced sutra through the eyes of Monism

hey, where did you get that Samadhi equals the Naturel State or Buddha Mind? Samadhi is of Indian origin and it refers to concentrative absorption. what a wonderful video. i'm really in awe of monks, i don't know why. i think many Westerners would watch that video and think why would anyone want to do that? but I.. feel a connection to that lifestyle. I must have connections with monasticism previous lives. though in this life, I'm not sure if I would do that. but who knows.

it's not exclusively a Taoist board. if you don't find the topic interesting, don't read it. dude remember I told you about those dreams I had last night where I was flying around my house? it was just like Wakign Life where he starts floating out of his bed and starts flying around. haha

i can't understand the chorus, one leg standing on an OHHH? wtf? pretty funny though. def makes fun of people who only become buddhists cuz its the cool thing to do. i laughed so hard in the beginning (00:20) when he threw his cig in the water right next to the Buddha statue, hahah. the instructor told us to do a 45 minute meditation, I nailed it in 10!! Good find.

that movie is what got me interested in philosophy, freshmen year of college. I don't know if I'd even be the same person if I hadn't seen that movie. its truly amazing. good quote from the scene with the guy playing the pinball machine (who is actually the director) "There's only one instant, and it's right now. And it's eternity. "

interesting ^^ yeah Tummo is Indian in origin and the Tibetans never really claim that any of their methods are purely Tibetan as all of their Tantra came from India. the beauty though is in their preservation

I hope you didn't miss this message Silicon, let me quote it for you.

Silicon, relax. you're creating some really bad karma for yourself here.

yes!! I got a response! and he tried so hard to impress me! wow, i feel special. now I can sleep easy tonight please respond with more sarcasm I beg you!!

you ever read Ken Wilber? though I don't agree with that silly bald man about some of his theories, he's quite a smart fuck and I think he has a lot to offer. whats relevant is what he teaches, based on research, in the interpretation of experience based on intellectual capacity. There are different 'levels' of intellectual awareness. I forgot the general scheme, but an example is a primitive man at the 'Magic' level will have a subtle energy realm experience and attribute that to a God that dwells inside a lake or something, whereas someone who is at the 'Mythic' level will have that experience and interpret it as Jesus coming to speak to him. [the ways in which these altered states will (and can) be experienced depends predominantly on the structures (stages) of consciousness that have developed in the individual (Wilber, 1983, 2000b). As we will see, individuals at, for example, the magic, mythic, and rational stages can all have a peak experience of a subtle realm, but how that subtle realm is experienced and interpreted depends in large measure on the structures of consciousness that are available to unpack the experience] these structural capacities are dependent upon the persons inquisition, general prowess of intellect, ethical evolution, and so on. this is why I don't like the whole 'anti-intellectual' camp that takes dis-identification with thoughts too seriously. Of course its important to realize that thoughts are not-self, but at the same time intellect should not be downplayed and it helps, more than it hurts, to try to interpret altered experiences into the primary conscious output: thinking. until you have achieved full enlightenment: its IMPOSSIBLE to truly have a non-conceptual experience. because whatever experience you have it will be conditioned by previous experiences, ideas, thoughts, and concepts. I'm not saying that the experience itself is wrong, its just not 'true' if by 'true' you agree that 'non-conceptual = truth'. non-conceptual does not mean having an experience and then never thinking about it or trying to put it into words, because concepts go deeper than words and thoughts. the mind has many layers of conditioning and if one just attempts to stop the conscious conditioning one does not address the subconscious / unconscious layers of conditioning. the conscious mind can be used as a tool to decondition all layers of mind, coupled with deep contemplation.

so you've sat all Friday night on your computer writing sarcastic remarks and baselessly attacking someone that you don't even know over the internet? nice. I would recommend that you tryout for a writing gig on SNL but they don't hire people that repeat themselves constantly, zero points for originality "brother", but you do get a couple cute points for cleverness. I'm going to guess that you don't agree at all with what VH has been saying, but since you lack the knowledge/philosophical understanding or general debative ability you chose the sarcastic attack route to make your 'opponent' appear foolish. Well I guess that's smart for a 15 year old. I hope attacking people on the net makes you feel happy and secure in your warm blanket at night. Please respond with more repetive sarcasm. I yearn for that kind of shit at 1:30am

it always seems to me that people use sarcasm to mask their true feelings. its very easy to say something sarcastically instead of growing balls and being blunt and honest.

beating a dead horse... I realized its truly impossible to have an actual philosophical debate with some people here because they are way too attached to their belief systems and have had some experiences which they grasp very strongly with a specific interpretation. like if a Bible thumper has a vision of Jesus, and interprets that experience as dualistic and 'real', theres probably no way you're going to convince that dude that his interpretation was false. at least in that lifetime. it's all karma so really this is pointless as those entrenched in their beliefs will only get further entrenched in their beliefs

so who the hell have I been talking to on MSN for the past year? lol yea whats your username

go on msn