Sunya

lol.. maybe. but i'm still a far ways off from being able to drink urine with equanimity

Hi hugo first download Firefox here, as its a preferred browser over Internet Explorer http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/products/down...〈=en-US then download and install Java here, restart your computer and try to enter the chat room http://www.java.com/en/

bliss isn't the goal of tantra, its a side effect not to get attached to. sex is used to achieve great bliss for the purpose of seeing the empty and illusory nature of bliss, its said that for one to practice tantric sex they should be able to drink with equal equanimity a glass of wine and a glass of urine. this is to say, he should have no attachment to sensation. tantric sex is but one method of tantra, which uses many methods using subtle energies for the purpose of cutting through to the true nature of things

so are similar methods used? or is there a different method for seeing emptiness directly?

click Live Chat at th etop under za banner

is coffee really a problem? h ow much of a problem? i'm going to try to stop ejaculating so much, limit myself to twice a month. but I really likes me the coffee, I only do it for energy when i'm sleepy. does not ejaculating give you more energy during the day?

Hari how does the subtle astral body (illusory body in Vajrayana) relate to the skhandas ?

I don't think Shakyamuni Buddha, the physical Nirmanakaya emanation, taught anything about mind streams as we are talking about them. as far as I know, theres nothing about this in the Pali cannon. this is a Mahayana/Vajrayana development, the continuation of the 5 skhandas is the perceived self, and there is nothing outside the 5 skhandas. so then once one reaches Nirvana in the Theravada sense, it is like a candle being blown out and no semblance of an individual remains. while i think in Mahayana/Vajrayana there is more talk of an individual mindstream that does exist after enlightenment, where every Buddha has the same qualities of compassion and wisdom but they remain separate. but since this mindstream exists after the illusory nature of the skhandas are revealed, then i think this implies that there is something beyond the skhandas, something like pure luminosity though it is empty and cannot be called a Self. I think that the Pali suttas are more about negation because the people at the time were very much eternalist and believed in a soul separate from matter, so the physical Shakyamuni Buddha taught them to negate but this can easily lead to Nihilism so Mahayana is more about affirming that there is something positive... another goal instead of cessation, Buddha Nature "Nagarjuna says that the mindstream of every unenlightened being is permeated by the heart essence of buddhahood. The fundamental nature of our mindstreams is tathagatagarbha, or buddha nature, the seed and heart essence of an enlightened being. It is this quality that gives us the capacity to become buddhas." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

time for some lemonade perhaps?

thank you Santiago for a wonderful transmission

"fabric of God" implies a permeating essence which is monism, oneness. take it easy, whats with the hostility?

there's nothing inherent about Shaktipat. only when you attach essence to it,or a source, there occurs a problem. Shaktipat is used quite often in Vajrayana, but you already knew that. you're just provoking me.. I must've hurt your identity pretty bad or something since you have it in for me. well you can find a new hobby for your ego now because you're on ignore. ciao, i wish you the best.

Santiago lives in Florida so he is in EST time zone thanks for doing this Santiago, I look forward to tuning in and connecting with you and Susan will be wonderful..

there is no clinging to the medicine because the medicine de-clings you, or atleast it should.

it's amazing how childish people act when their assumptions about their experiences are questioned. and yes both God and Tao imply a oneness. but if they don't to you, that's wonderful. does Tao depend on mind?

what's with the sarcasm? and where is the monism in any of those quotes? all I see are quotes taken out of context if you're implying that they are monistic Buddhism isn't monistic, just get over it and stop trying. you'll have better luck trying to fit a square into a round hole. Buddhist masters have gone through great pains to create methods and views to get one out of this tendency to give substance, essence, or "oneness" to reality. it is a form of grasping coming from fear, coming from ignorance. early Buddhism does sometimes appear monistic such as the Nikaya Suttas, but that is because Buddha was preaching to very deluded people who could only understand such teachings and nothing beyond. Monism says that everything exists because everything is of one cosmic soul or essence, this is addressed in the Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...2.048.than.html and Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...2.015.than.html also, even though Mahayana does talk about a One Taste or some sort of Oneness, this is only saying that everything is empty of self-nature, there is no separation or duality because all phenomena are inter-dependent. but, that doesn't mean that phenomena doesn't exist and all phenomena are really of one substance. an apple is still an apple, an orange is still an orange. all these 2 forms have in common is that they are both empty of self-nature. they are not the same. interdependence is not the same as same-ness or monism.

the experiences of Samsara and Nirvana are both equally valid yes, but obviously Nirvana is preferred since there is no longer suffering or ignorance. isn't then Nirvana superior to Samsara? it's not judging one mindset by the preferences of another mindset. nobody prefers Samsara, everyone prefers Nirvana. this is because of Buddha Nature, the hidden jewel inside all of us that beckons us to search deeper, the hidden insight that there is more than this world full of suffering and despair. you are right, I agree with you partly. but you see, dependent arising is not the truth, and it is the truth. it is both, it is concept and non-concept. i'll try to explain Dependent origination is a tool, a skillful means, for someone to get the insight of how phenomena truly exist. there are 2 facets of emptiness. the first is the concept, which is a tool to break all concepts because it frees you from all extremes and grasping, and the second is the actual insight into emptiness beyond concepts; the way things truly exist, the wisdom if emptiness is different than the concept of emptiness. the latter is required before the former can arise. the concept is a tool to get to the non-concept, this non-concept is termed Emptiness or Shunyata or Dharmakaya for the sake of clarification, though nothing can truly be said about it.

.

VH? Van Halen? ah, nevermind. it is indeed circular, the same is being said over and over again. each position has a different view of what non-conceptual realization means. I don't think any of us here have reached the pinnacle of our respective traditions, so until we become Buddhas, or have realized Nirguna Brahman, this discussion really is meaningless. I might have been the cause for it as I did start discussing the philosophical differences.. and then it all snow balled. I apologize for this, and hope we can walk away with a deeper respect for our traditions and more motivation to keep practicing. ok, fellas. let's get some sleep.

thanks for the clarification xabir

thanks for the paper Dwai, it was an interesting read. if it is true, and if it is not.. it is of no matter to argue about it anymore. if Buddhadharma is the true way, then eventually sentient beings will come to it through good acts. if Vedanta can provide true liberation as well, then that is great. that's all that matters. win-win.

you are joking, right?