Sunya

see emptiness of this divine nectar smoothie i give cup to thee

yes you are right. intellectually, it is bothersome to venture into comparative religion, and i'm sure many scholars and academics agree with you that Buddhism and Hinduism are like a spoon and fork. it's the norm these days to flatland all traditions, give them individual creative prowess, and yet completely discredit the traditions by saying they are all the same. answers are not what I'm after. rather it is a path that encompasses method and view to reach the goal that makes the most sense to me. this is serious stuff, this is important stuff. suffering exists and ignorance runs deep. so we must start taking things more seriously and analyze more. question more. it's not just as simple as a cursory knowledge of religions and the assumption that they are saying the same thing. this is an assumption that is uncredited and a completely new age assumption. i'm sure if you asked the founders and mystics of various religions throughout time they would not agree with you. Buddha argued against other mystics during his time. Sankara argued against many Buddhists. this whole new age mixed stew pot is a modern phenomena, completely unfounded, based on cultural interpretation and idealism. you are holding on REALLY STRONG to your assumption that non-conceptual equals truth and every conceptual religious method is merely that, a method, to get to the non-conceptual.well, Buddha taught against this and if you understand why than you'll see why Buddhism is not just another fork in the drawer, to be picked up at whim and eaten with at your convenience. Buddhism is a sharp knife made of adamantium (wolverine's claws) that cuts through the bowl and everything in it. words are not just words, dualistic ramblings that should be tossed out and forgotten.. no. words are symbols, these symbols imprint on your mindstream and define the non-conceptual experience. whether you like it or not, you have to use words as a method to truly non-conceptual perception

Jaroyo, forgot your password? log in with your email as the username, wouldn't want you to lose that cool name woah woah woah, dude,,,bro....man.... you have some solid assumptions here, i don't know where you got them. are you a history major? I know human history can give one a pretty pessimistic view on human activity, but you can not judge the Buddha in the same regard. most human history is based on individual selfish actions. the Buddha's actions were completely selfless since he left the palace to find the cause for all human suffering, not just his own, and this is the path he taught. saying "if a Buddha required the ignorant to exist" is a very very skewed way of looking at things my friend. it's like saying "if AIDS researchers require the AIDS virus to exist" or "if homeless shelters require the homeless to exist" suffering exists without the help of the Buddha. Buddha is not a God, he doesn't control anything. he is a being like you and I. it is "higher and better" to become a Buddha simply because a- a Buddha does not suffer b- a Buddha has powers to help many many beings, like an awakened God helping other Gods to realize that they are Gods themselves, since there is no Higher God to take refuge in, we have to end our own suffering and help out others.

welcome!

an example: angry fearful human being peaceful compassionate human being they experience the same world, but completely differently because they have different views. these views are based on conditioning, past experiences. and this conditioning runs very deep. views can also be very subtle such as the need for a source of manifestation, a ground of existence, and a oneness that pervades all reality. these very subtle views distort the perception of experience, coloring and distorting the windshield of perception. right view in Buddhism in fact isn't a view but rather taking away of views. instead of painting another coat on the windshield, right view cleans the windshield. eventually the windshield melts away/ right view isn't just as simple as letting go completely of expectation, surrendering, not thinking, etc. because mental patterns are so deeply ingrained in the mindstream from countless past lives frankly, it is impossible to rest in a viewless state of truth because truth is not a state or an experience. truth comes from right perception of any state: awake, dream, sleep, whatever.

let's steer this discussion into a different direction concept: the Self in Vedanta compared to Buddha Nature so dwai, could you define Atman or Self as taught in Advaita? my understanding of Atman is pure spirit, unborn, uncreated, eternal, the silent, imperishable witness of all change which is equal to Brahman. is this correct?

an ability honed by meditative practice is to stop the heart. many yogis consciously die when the time is right by going into meditation, but for them it's when the time is right, when the karma of being in a physical body is done and they move on. if you're just curious why not wait? it will happen eventually man! no worries in the mean time, as you patiently wait for your physical demise, you can look into traditions such as Vajrayana which have many methods for getting through the death process and attaining higher rebirth, or even enlightenment, at the moment of death. death is very scary for most, utterly confusing, and shocking. without prior practice and expectancy of the signs that occur, you will most likely freak out and not attain a favorable rebirth PM me or email me (mixolyd at gmail dot com) if you want to discuss this in private

K.

just because I don't agree that every spiritual tradition leads to the same realization does not mean I do not respect them

and you are no different than any zealous modern atheist/agnostic, bashing religion at every turn, skewing history in your own favor, only looking only at the negatives; simply having no respect whatsoever for ancient traditions that have produced countless highly realized beings. Uh,, in the Buddhist view we are all Gods. but you're right, can't prove anything, Oh wise and compassionate internet troll, please show us the light. please keep posting ridiculous posts showing your insecurity towards religion and authority which have unfounded basis; no one will question anything you say, because you post with such clarity and insight, explaining everything with such detail and unbias. please go on, I assure you, you are not wasting your time at all..

I really liked Spring Summer Fall Winter, so good.. I would recommend "The Cup" or "Phorpa" which is about young Tibetan monks obsessed with soccer, very good film. directed and written by Khyentse Norbu Rinpoche, who also made Travelers and Magicians http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0201840/ I would also recommend Baraka, which isn't Buddhist or religious per say, but definitely spiritual as the whole movie has no dialogue and its just scenes taken world-wide with beautiful environments, though provoking imagery and a general sense of contemplation. One of my favorite movies of all time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/ what else..what else... if you can deal with symbolic imagery than Holy Mountain is worth seeing. made in the 70s very influenced by LSD, Yoga, and Western occult. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071615/

I posted this elsewhere but feel that its important to post here as well.. I understand that on this forum, there is a big mass conceptual agreement that method is everything and view doesn't matter, or rather one should forget about view and simply surrender (to your latent karmas) and somehow you'll realize truth. but really, this is not how the Buddhists teach things since method is not the proper seed for the fruition of awakening, Yogic method is like suping up your car: put in a killer engine with a turbo kit, some nos tanks, fancy seats, the works. as fast as that bad boy is, you're still driving blind because you forgot to clean your windshield

I need to do this too, but starting with the Abhidharma is very daunting, so I was recommended these http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...efriending.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...i/wheel017.html

all of the "useless" stuff is about establishing View. to you that is useless, to many Buddhist practitioners View is everything, ask a real Buddhist yogi and he will say the same thing. "What is useful" without the right view will not lead to Buddhist realization, might as well call yourself a Theist and enjoy those unitive blissful experiences while they last until your good karma dries up and you're back on the suffering wheel. I understand that on this forum, there is a big mass conceptual agreement that method is everything and view doesn't matter, or rather one should forget about view and simply surrender (to your latent karmas) and somehow you'll realize truth. but really, this is not how the Buddhists teaching things since method is not the proper seed for the fruition of awakening, so to you this is useless, to Buddhists this is gold. yogic method is like suping up your car: put in a killer engine with a turbo kit, some nos tanks, fancy seats, the works. as fast as that bad boy is, you're still driving blind because you forgot to clean your windshield

"I guess he saw through their trip! LOL!"

and maybe there is a karmic reason for you meeting these not so great Lamas, does not mean it's the truth.

dwai, Zero is a symbol, that's what numbers are. when you say I have one apple, and I say I have one apple too. does that mean that we both have the same apple? No. does an apple have an inherent 1-ness about it or is the 1-ness simply a symbol? you can write many 1's and 0's on a paper and its the same symbol written over and over again, but if you have a basket full of apples.. its a different story. i'll show you this quite easily if you come over and i'll eat an apple and you still have yours left. the apples still exist separately. likewise, Shunyata (emptiness) is a symbol, describing the nature of all mind streams but mind streams are still separate. you are still holding on to the idea that there is 1 behind everything, that individuality does not exist because there has to be some essence to everything. the clay that all reality is made from. i like Hinduism more than Western religions which have a separate clay maker, but now i think that the whole idea of everything made from one clay is also just an idea, and holding on to this idea means you will experience that since the Mind is of infinite power. you will see your deepest desires, but it won't free you. Shunyata in contrast is not an essence, like the clay that all phenomena are part of, Shunyata is a symbol to how things exist but there is nothing to get stuck on. Brahman is an easy concept to get stuck on because of its absolute nature. Advaitans identify with Brahman, and this identity is superimposed, as you like to say, and the experience is very real. thus these practitioners feel they have made it because they have experiences of grand unity; Ultimate Self with no boundaries, but really thats just a grand fantasy. can you not see what i'm saying? with Emptiness there is no identity with. you can't say I am Sunyata! Sunyata is a description, a symbol, not an essence or something to identify with..

Negative. Buddha was called Sakyamuni which means Sage of Sakya, referring to the particular Sakya kingdom that he was born into. Srimadbhagavatam has nothing to do with Buddhist teachings as its a dualistic teaching centered on Bhakti worship of Vishnu and Krishna. maybe you are thinking of Samkhya which was a dualistic school existing at the time. maybe you should browse the Advaita and Buddhism thread, as all of this has been discussed thoroughly.

if you can prove this, then you can prove that Shunyata is not Emptiness; Vedanta and Buddhism differ in view. this would be monumental for you since you've argued the complete opposite the whole time here. by the way.. "non-phenomenal realm" --- careful... are you talking about a formless realm? or the way things truly exist, right here right now, which is what Buddha was concerned with? in a formless realm it may feel like all mind is one, but is this the way things exist right here right now?

one of the biggest surprises I got over a year ago when I met with a Tibetan Lama was when I asked if truth can be discussed intellectually with concepts (coming from a Taoist/Hindu/Zen background, I was all about the non-conceptual), I was shocked when he said yes. Dwai, this is something you'll have to accept. Buddhists use concepts to point to the non-conceptual, using skillful means and method to not get stuck in concepts. and non-conceptual doesn't equal non-conceptual. since non-conceptual can also be an extreme position, ungrounded in reason, hopeful in idealism and expectation. question, how is Advaita absolute truth non-conceptual if you're already given a concept to work with as a foundation (the existence of Brahman) ? even if you give it all these fancy words of attributeless, you're still positing this absolute existence, and this is something that Buddhism does not do.

their trip? so you don't think reincarnation is real? or you just have a thing for dissing tibetan buddhists? confusing post, but interesting story.

you've obviously never done mushrooms if you think someone would smile at their taste..

this is a pretty good site talking about this topic in Vajrayana/Dzogchen/Mahamudra context http://www.shambhala.org/ntc/offerings/gli...-alaya-full.htm