Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[goldisheavy]

From this one might gather that there does seem to be proof. I'm not a Dzogchen scholar. But, there is proof that it pre-exists it's entrance into Tibet. Lots of proofs get destroyed by the Muslim invasion of the 600's. Anyway, there does seem to be texts that were preserved, as they are listed in order in the book, Kunjed Gyalpo.

 

When asked for proof, instead of talking about these supposedly preserved books, you go on about the lineage transmission, which is ORAL, btw... thus NO PROOF as we understand it in the West. In the West words are not proof of anything. You don't post a link to any book scans, which would be the closest you could come to a proof. Even with a book, you'd need experts to analyze it and date it. That's not easy to do! The experts will then argue and bicker about the books exact date and they will have good reasons to disagree. Thus even with a book you'll end up with NO PROOF again.

 

So instead of just honestly saying that there is "no proof", you pretend like there is. That's what's GARBAGE in your post. I have no way to say it other than call it garbage. You're asked for something and in return you give a totally different thing.

 

See.... Dzogchen doesn't need to be proven to work. It doesn't need a firm historical basis. Dozgchen people are so insecure. Every time Namkai Norbu talks about Dzogchen he gets so defensive about it. He always tries to justify it and place it within Buddhism. It's like he anticipates criticism and tries to answer it before he even hears the actual criticism. That's pathetic. That's no way a real Dzogchen master should act. That's very different from the fearless behavior of the real masters. A real Dzogchen master doesn't give a damn about placing their wisdom within convention, about giving themselves a firm conventional footing.

 

When some guy, I forget his name, came to some other guy, forget his name too (who gives a damn what their name is? I get the point tho, listen to the point), he asked for the meaning of Dzogchen. The other guy remained silent. There was no answer! So this guy assumed the master was being a dick and wasn't teaching him anything! As soon as he thought so, he started to vomit and began dying. Then he thought his motivation was all wrong, and he was making too many assumptions, and he got better. The the master/other guy said, "listen, since you are so stupid and stubborn, I'll teach you... really I gave it all to you the first time, but you don't get it... there is nothing to understand... and since you don't get this yet, I'll teach you this and that tantras." See? Now do you think a guy like that, who worked in the fields with dirty arms, constantly used magic, ate body parts for dinner, and basically did whatever the fuck he wanted at all times, and who had pretty much no contact with what we call "the real world", a guy like that would give a damn about proving what he knows? About placing it in historical context???? If you think the answer is YES, then you understand nothing whatsoever...

 

Dzogchen is about a visionary non-conventional experience. It's not about how to build a conventional reputation! Or about how to become a reputable tradition. It has nothing to do with any of that shit.

Edited May 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[dwai]

No it is not a departure from Nagarjuna because he both shows the two truths and subverts them. An example of the resultant being the Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra, composed around the 200's, with it's, no ear consciousness, etc. no consciousness period, etc. no emptiness, etc. no liberation, no bondage, nothing to attain, no one to attain it, etc.

 

Also no, the syntax is not different. The handling of Brahman in Hindu cosmology is totally different from the handling of emptiness in Buddhist cosmology. Both Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism show that Brahman is ultimately real, the true identity of things, the one consciousness that is the all, the one in the many. That which is the final common denominator of all things. That which things spring from and return too, and all the while are, thus maya does not exist. This is not the same as the Buddhist Shunyata. If you understood dependent origination, you would understand that different systems lead to different places, because result originates dependent upon view. Even in Buddhism there are different ways that enlightenment manifests dependent upon the system, but they all revolve around dependent origination so all lead eventually to final emancipation regardless of how it appears.

 

I think you lack in your understanding of Advaita and what Brahman means. Advaita never claims Maya doesn't exist. All Advaita posits is that Maya is simply phenomenal reality that objective consciousness perceives via the process of superimposition, it is satya, but of a vyavaharik nature. So vyavaharik reality (by virtue of being empty) is illusory (Maya).

 

Relation between Brahman and Maya is not one of causality. Brahman doesn't create the phenomenal reality. It is the result of adhyaasa.

 

You are right in your understanding that different ways manifest enlightenment in different ways. But that is because these ways are limited by being Categorical frameworks.

 

 

You have not yet understood dependent origination, it is not just how phenomena are empty, it is also how consciousness, from form to formless is also empty of inherent existence and it reveals infinite regress, no primordial source of things, no cosmic "all is one" will. Emptiness is empty as well, there is no emptiness, emptiness does not inherently exist. Hindu's find it hard to accept that Buddhism is in fact different and has been different since the Buddha declared that it was different, and it seems that only Buddhists know this because only Buddhists understand intuitively what dependent origination actually means. Because if you actually did, you would become Buddhist. Buddhism has always been elitist. The Buddha was an elitist, arguing with all other forms of spirituality of the time and every Buddhist master from then on has been elitist. The Dalai Lama is elitist, but compassionate with the understanding that not everyone is going to get it, so that people need their own rate of evolution so is not a person that goes out to conquer the world with Buddhism. The Buddha was the same way and taught some beings a kind of worldly dharma that would help them build enough merit and lead to higher rebirths to understand dependent origination in the future.

 

Dzogchen on the surface seems to be somewhat like Kashmir Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta, but really since Dzogchen is earlier, it's more that these paths are trying to be like Dzogchen. But the mis-understanding is that, when Dzogchen was taught in secret, it was taught to those that already understood dependent origination. Rigpa is merely the recognition of the Buddhas 6 realm model and the 31 planes of existence as all elaborations of one's own consciousness which is "The Supreme Source" for the experience of liberation, or bondage and is inherently free from such distinctions because as I stated before, things don't really arise, including consciousness. There is no consciousness as final and true, no awareness that is final or true in Buddhism period. There is only the realization or constant awareness of dependent origination, that is dependent upon realization of dependent origination and not on itself, and thus there is also no emptiness and no brahman.

 

In Hindu cosmology, Brahman is the re-absorber at the end of the cosmic eon, there is no eternal liberation for hindus because they think that they are all part of this one mass of consciousness that they all came from and realize through yoga, then re-absorb into at the end of the cosmic eon. Even Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva all arise and subside in Brahman and Brahman is this vast and mysterious will. Read Vasistha's Yoga, read any Hindu cosmology, all the God's of Hinduism that teach Hinduism, including Shiva are dated, were born and die.

 

Well actually not Shiva because Chakrasamvara liberated Shiva before the Kali Yuga, but he still manifests as a worldly deity until his time to manifest as a Buddha sometime in the future where he will teach the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold noble path and dependent origination. These are Dharma seals, and these seals are what separates Buddhism from all other spiritual traditions. Buddhism is the first tradition to use the term Sanatana Dharma, but Hindu's took that too. Even all this talk about Brahman being emptiness is just an expression of Hindus trying to keep an identity, while really Hinduism is a whole bunch of different traditions, there's the Vedic, the Shamkya, the South Indian Shaivites who countered the Vedic culture, the forrest dwellers who wrote some of the very early Upanishads, the best of which were written after the coming of the Buddha. Advaita Vedanta is based on the teachings of Gaudapada, who's teaching of Ajativada (non-origination) is obviously from the teachings of Nagarjuna. Advaita Vedanta also seems heavily influenced a lot by Asangas Yogacara as well, which is a highly misunderstood system, because its only to be treated as a meditative system and only Buddhist if coupled with Nagarjunas Madhyamaka. Also Trika Shaivism is most likely influenced by Dzogchen due to proximity in Oddiyana, but in a mis-understood and incomplete way, thus no Jalus or body of light as fruit in Trika (though there is talk of Shaivite masters attaining something like it, but the result is different since the view is different). The result originates dependent upon the view, if no "Right View" from the 8 fold noble path, no true liberation. Buddhism is the only system that is completely seamless from the first turning to the fourth turning, though of course not all systems accept later turnings, but all systems accept the Pali Suttas as the first definer of all the systems. But, not all the Hindus used to refer to the Vedas as supreme, though most do now due to the proliferation of Advaita Vedanta which kind of brought many types of Hinduisms together, after the Muslims destroyed Buddhism in India. Anyway, your Advaita Vedanta is really kind of a crypto Buddhism, without Buddha anymore, because you've reified emptiness as a catch all supreme entity that holds everything as a singular being calling it Brahman, thus Advaita Vedanta is Monism, essentially eternalism and not at all a vehicle that leads to Buddhahood, simply because it misunderstands Dependent Origination.

 

All the best!

 

Your understanding of Hindu thought needs a refresher. You are referring to Pauranic concepts, which are not to be mistaken with those posited by Vedanta. Puranas are not a good source to understand Philosophy from.

 

Advaita Vedanta (as has been shown earlier in this post) predates Buddha by several thousand years.

Edited May 28, 2009 by dwai

[goldisheavy]

Like I have said before...all Categorical frameworks are limited in their validity. And their validity is the framework. There is no absolute truth to be learned from frameworks.

 

Frameworks however must provide a pathway to transcend themselves. That is how one can access Higher Truths.

 

Well said! One shouldn't make love to the ornaments! Try to find the woman who is wearing the ornaments and fuck her and not her earrings.

 

Vajrahridaya's pronouncements (somewhat contemptuous) about "Hinduism" rings of arrogance in one's categorical framework.

 

Indeed. He comes off like his doctrine is a slam dunk. He's got a lock on truth.

 

What I was trying to show with this thread was that they are all the same. Sunyata, Emptiness, Void, Tao, Brahman, Aatman. We can go on and on about it and not get anywhere...

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are the same. They are not the same. But anyone who insists they are categorically different, clearly different is also wrong. In reality the relationship between meanings is very interesting. No two meanings or symbols are necessarily the same. Nor are they necessarily different. It's hard to say exactly because what the relationship is, IS ALIVE. The relationship is life, is alive, is not inert, is not constant. It dances. It's kind of like trying to determine if the woman is on the left side of man in tango. You can't tell! They twirl around and sometimes the woman is on the left, sometimes on the right, and sometimes one cannot say where in terms of left/right, and then they twirl again. That's life.

 

Even death is alive. Death is a living process of life. There is nothing dead in death. Death is life! There is only life. There is no death because nothing is dying. Everything is dying. This is the dance. It's not the final meaning, it's the dance of meaning.

 

And here's another way to put it.

 

Chuang Tzu said something like this, "The point of fish trap is fish. Once you get the fish, you can forget the trap. The point of the rabbit snare is the rabbit, once you get the rabbit you can forget the snare. The point of a word is meaning, once you get the meaning, you can forget the word." And I will elaborate:

 

You can catch the same fish, the same for the purpose of consumption, via:

 

- fishing hooks

- spear

- bare hands

- a stick of dynamite (with a detonator)

- a net

 

Just to name a few methods. The methods are wildly different, but the fish, for the purpose of consumption is the same. However, if you want to build an aquarium, then the stick of the dynamite is not the right method, and thus is not the same as others. So it's not categorically the same and it's not categorically different either. The same fish can be caught in many many ways.

 

So many many doctrines can reveal the same inner truth. Advaita can reveal the same truth as Buddhism and the same as Daoism and the same thing can also be revealed by non-traditional and largely original methods. This doesn't make Buddhism less valuable. This doesn't make Daoism less valuable. There is no need to get insecure and to start defending your pet doctrine.

[evZENy]

Now do you think a guy like that,.... If you think the answer is YES, then you understand nothing whatsoever...

 

well said! (P.S. Osmium is heavier :-)

[Vajrahridaya]

'Seth Ananda'

First, who was your teacher in Kashmir Shavism? were you raised in India? I am just looking for a background for understanding as there are many schools in the west with an Incomplete understanding of K.S.

Such as Siddah Yoga.

 

Yes, Siddha Yoga... it has real shaktipat, it follows the teachings of Abhinavagupta and Kshemaraja, has many scholars of the Kaula tradition, some of the most important ones on earth in fact that practice it. So incomplete? That would be your opinion. Swami Muktananda started practicing the practices of the Tantraloka in secret towards the end of his life, but fully taught the 36 tattvas and the teachings of the Shiva Sutras. He had incredible Siddhi's and realization, etc. He was a great yogi of high realization within the Shaivite system. But you are entitled to your opinion.

 

You experience Dependent origination within consciousness but Consciousness itself doesn't change.

 

Yes, it does change, from moment to moment it is not the same, it and it's content are not different. It changes in meditation, it changes when your not in meditation, it changes when you experience deep meditation, etc. Consciousness changes. It changes when it's featureless, it changes when it's still, it changes...

 

You say we were not always conscious but are you talking about Consciousness itself or the present individual content within Consciousness? When you were in the unconscious state experiencing whatever formless level you identified with, neither perception or non-perception bliss, infinite consciousness bliss, nothingness bliss, there are different formless states where you are not conscious of having a body or thoughts, or time.

 

 

Before you answer that too quickly, Have you ever had a dream that was amazing and that you wanted to hold but felt it slipping away as you woke up no matter how much you wanted to remember it?

 

Yes..

 

Could this be a nightly microcosm of the experience at birth and death?

 

Yes, you pass through the unconscious space and if one is not a realized yogi, where there is no more unconsciousness, one only identifies consciousness with certain forms of habit, so one forgets pre-birth experiences. I've met people who remembered where they came from before they became conscious of being in the womb.

 

Consciousness Itself does not Change during this experience. Only its content.

 

Consciousness is it's content, like I said before, yogi's who meditated and realized the state of consciousness where the content was neither perception, nor non-perception then came back to layering all sorts of denser aspects, thought that this was the nirguna brahman and the supreme source of being, but really it was just a focus on a state beyond forms and thoughts where consciousness proliferates a dimension beyond tangible expression, it's still a change in consciousness based upon content. A formless concept, or form concept, consciousness changes.

 

Oneness which Buddhism seems to deny. Have you ever merged with a lover during Lovemaking, experiencing fully being them...? what about the universe? If there is no foundation of oneness for the unitive experience how can It be experienced?

 

I've felt intimately connected with my lover, like we were intermingled, but no, not totally one with her. I've even seen through another persons eyes, but I did not know everything that they knew about them. Total oneness is an over romanticized assumptive interpretation of an experience where subject and object fall away and consciousness merges with infinite space, you still are NOT that person nor that persons karmas. You only connect, not total oneness. I've experienced this many, many times, daily, sometimes for elongated periods of time. I've experienced what is called nirguna brahman in deep meditation when I got shaktipat from Gurumayi and realized later that it was an experience where my consciousness proliferated through the inherently empty quality of all objects and subjects, no sense of universe, no sense of there having been a universe, total fullness, translucent darkness, total consciousness. When I came too my body consciousness, there was great bliss and a sense of deep connection with everyone and I loved everyone and wanted to hug everyone and say, "Why do you suffer, you are God"... I realized later through Buddhist psychology what this experience actually was, it is a good experience, but it's contextualized much more objectively now. I've experienced that state many times, but I realize it's more akin to Buddha nature, experiencing the potential for everyone's liberation that is inherent because all things are inherently empty of any reality, even consciousness.

 

And a bigger question for me again is about the experience of Personal relationship with Divinity.

Buddhism cant even come close to Answering this one but the Experience is real. In deep prayer, where does the guidance come from? where does the decent of Grace and the miracles it bring come from? when we listen enough to allow God to speak to us, who's voice do we hear - And we do hear a voice.

You cant easily write off these experiences had by millions of mystics within the Theistic traditions. Have you had any of these experiences?

 

It's just your subtler consciousness, your subtle connections in past lives, your unconscious entities or selves. I've experienced all this directly and have better answers that are more objective through Buddhism. Deities still talk to me, great beings from higher realms, etc. There are Gods, and they will talk with you, and there are bodhisattvas and if you connect to the dimension of Bodhisattvas, they will talk with you, they are enlightened aspects of one's own potentiality.

 

For me Kashmir Shavism is still the only tradition I have found that can answer all these questions...

 

Have it your way, most people do on these boards, I find no one really changes their mind much, no matter how long one argues for. I changed my mind though, I did find and realize that the unanswered questions I had from Shaivism were answered through Buddhism. When you get to that place, it might not be this lifetime, you might find and ask more. What happens when you die? What will happen when you realize final liberation? Answer these questions? Only Mahayana answers these questions. Mahayana talks about the activities of enlightened beings, how enlightened beings manifest their powers to proliferate dharma and pacify the suffering. Shaivism mostly just says you serve people and then you die and go to Siddhaloka, which is not a permanent realm because it's based on an idea of a permanent consciousness, but even Vasistha's Yoga say's it's not permanent, it all falls down, even after a long, long time.

 

Buddha realms are based on dependent origination, not on an illusion that consciousness does not change. The merits of a Buddha realm are based on the fact that samsarins keep cycling, even after the end of the cosmic eon, even the gods brahma and vishnu die and are re-absorbed and other brahma and vishnu's will take their place.

 

Funnily enough I love Buddhism and plan to spend the next 10 years or so studying Dependent Origination and trying to realise emptiness. To me it seems like the most brilliant and achievable system available. I actually have faith now that I can achieve Enlightenment in this life

My Kashmir Shavite teacher is too far away for real consistent guidance (in Delhi) even with regular Phone calls and Email. And there is no support of a Sangha here.

 

It's interesting, did you know that Swami Muktananda actually kept Kashmir Shaivism from becoming extinct, most people know about it because of him, even in India. There used to be tons and tons of devotees in India before he died, and all around the world. He really saved many scriptures from being destroyed. Even though I don't really follow that line of interpretation anymore and find it incomplete compared to Dzogchen in practice and philosophy. Gurumayi even set up the http://www.muktabodha.org/ Institute, check it out. It has a vast resource of Sanskrit texts and has some of the best scholars in the world translating texts into English. Also the Vedashala there which is preserving a dying Vedic culture.

 

Anyway... all the best!

[Seth Ananda]

When asked for proof, instead of talking about these supposedly preserved books, you go on about the lineage transmission, which is ORAL, btw... thus NO PROOF as we understand it in the West. In the West words are not proof of anything. You don't post a link to any book scans, which would be the closest you could come to a proof. Even with a book, you'd need experts to analyze it and date it. That's not easy to do! The experts will then argue and bicker about the books exact date and they will have good reasons to disagree. Thus even with a book you'll end up with NO PROOF again.

 

So instead of just honestly saying that there is "no proof", you pretend like there is. That's what's GARBAGE in your post. I have no way to say it other than call it garbage. You're asked for something and in return you give a totally different thing.

 

See.... Dzogchen doesn't need to be proven to work. It doesn't need a firm historical basis. Dozgchen people are so insecure. Every time Namkai Norbu talks about Dzogchen he gets so defensive about it. He always tries to justify it and place it within Buddhism. It's like he anticipates criticism and tries to answer it before he even hears the actual criticism. That's pathetic. That's no way a real Dzogchen master should act. That's very different from the fearless behavior of the real masters. A real Dzogchen master doesn't give a damn about placing their wisdom within convention, about giving themselves a firm conventional footing.

 

When some guy, I forget his name, came to some other guy, forget his name too (who gives a damn what their name is? I get the point tho, listen to the point), he asked for the meaning of Dzogchen. The other guy remained silent. There was no answer! So this guy assumed the master was being a dick and wasn't teaching him anything! As soon as he thought so, he started to vomit and began dying. Then he thought his motivation was all wrong, and he was making too many assumptions, and he got better. The the master/other guy said, "listen, since you are so stupid and stubborn, I'll teach you... really I gave it all to you the first time, but you don't get it... there is nothing to understand... and since you don't get this yet, I'll teach you this and that tantras." See? Now do you think a guy like that, who worked in the fields with dirty arms, constantly used magic, ate body parts for dinner, and basically did whatever the fuck he wanted at all times, and who had pretty much no contact with what we call "the real world", a guy like that would give a damn about proving what he knows? About placing it in historical context???? If you think the answer is YES, then you understand nothing whatsoever...

 

Dzogchen is about a visionary non-conventional experience. It's not about how to build a conventional reputation! Or about how to become a reputable tradition. It has nothing to do with any of that shit.

Lol, I think you should fly to Italy and tell Namkai how he is 'suposed' to act.

Gold, you are good for a laugh and sometimes have nuggets of Gold (good sized ones) among your diatribes, but sometimes you just sound like you stopped taking your Medication recently .

 

Mind you I have noticed the Insecurity you mentioned in the Dzogchen community's. I think this is because the people involved are glad that they are in what they are told is the Highest teaching and yet are fully aware that they dont really understand it and are worried that they are doing it 'wrong' - It is supossed to be an Instant awakening path but they know they are not awake... How come I cant walk through walls or rainbow body yet? It is supposed to be the easiest thing in the world...

that creates a lot of second guessing oneself.

 

Its not my place to tell you how to act and please continue if its really satisfying for you, but I do think you would probably have much better conversations with others if you stopped calling everyone Morons and Idiots and dick heads.

Also everyone can get a bit preachy at times but you often manage to take it to whole new levels...

I think you know what i am talking about.

anyway have fun.

[Vajrahridaya]

My Prajna tells me that what I understand is correct. Perhaps my Sadhana will corroborate that. Or may be not...Who can say?

 

The thing is, is that your reading into Buddhism from a hindu standpoint, not seeing it from a Buddhist standpoint, or even from the Buddhas teachings. Read all the Pali Suttas, why not? They don't state what you have stated.

 

You should get transmission from a real lineage master of Vajrayana sadhana and practice it and ask direct questions from the master. There are many real Vajrayana masters still around. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Garchen Rinpoche, so, so, many real humble and deeply experienced yogi's of that tradition with real retreat experience and integration with the world.

 

But... whatever... keep seeking and keep studying.

 

When asked for proof, instead of talking about these supposedly preserved books, you go on about the lineage transmission, which is ORAL, btw... thus NO PROOF as we understand it in the West. In the West words are not proof of anything. You don't post a link to any book scans, which would be the closest you could come to a proof. Even with a book, you'd need experts to analyze it and date it. That's not easy to do! The experts will then argue and bicker about the books exact date and they will have good reasons to disagree. Thus even with a book you'll end up with NO PROOF again.

 

So instead of just honestly saying that there is "no proof", you pretend like there is. That's what's GARBAGE in your post. I have no way to say it other than call it garbage. You're asked for something and in return you give a totally different thing.

 

See.... Dzogchen doesn't need to be proven to work. It doesn't need a firm historical basis. Dozgchen people are so insecure. Every time Namkai Norbu talks about Dzogchen he gets so defensive about it. He always tries to justify it and place it within Buddhism. It's like he anticipates criticism and tries to answer it before he even hears the actual criticism. That's pathetic. That's no way a real Dzogchen master should act. That's very different from the fearless behavior of the real masters. A real Dzogchen master doesn't give a damn about placing their wisdom within convention, about giving themselves a firm conventional footing.

 

When some guy, I forget his name, came to some other guy, forget his name too (who gives a damn what their name is? I get the point tho, listen to the point), he asked for the meaning of Dzogchen. The other guy remained silent. There was no answer! So this guy assumed the master was being a dick and wasn't teaching him anything! As soon as he thought so, he started to vomit and began dying. Then he thought his motivation was all wrong, and he was making too many assumptions, and he got better. The the master/other guy said, "listen, since you are so stupid and stubborn, I'll teach you... really I gave it all to you the first time, but you don't get it... there is nothing to understand... and since you don't get this yet, I'll teach you this and that tantras." See? Now do you think a guy like that, who worked in the fields with dirty arms, constantly used magic, ate body parts for dinner, and basically did whatever the fuck he wanted at all times, and who had pretty much no contact with what we call "the real world", a guy like that would give a damn about proving what he knows? About placing it in historical context???? If you think the answer is YES, then you understand nothing whatsoever...

 

Dzogchen is about a visionary non-conventional experience. It's not about how to build a conventional reputation! Or about how to become a reputable tradition. It has nothing to do with any of that shit.

 

Boy, your a pretty negative person.

 

I see Chogyal Namkhai Norbu from an entirely different standpoint. Who's correct? I guess we both are since it's all products of our own karma and that's our reality, subjective.

 

I don't believe you... bye!

 

 

 

 

Advaita Vedanta (as has been shown earlier in this post) predates Buddha by several thousand years.

 

No, I don't lack in my understanding. I know what they teach. Maya is the phenomenal expression of consciousness, maya is the illusion of duality, maya is this and that. Only pure consciousness is the real basis, Everything is made of one consciousness, is expressed then re-absorbed, then expressed. This is all called Samsara in Buddhism.

 

Anyway... no Advaita Vedanta does not pre-date the Buddha. It starts with Gaudapada's interpretation of the Upanishads. There was no advaita vedanta during the time of the Buddha. Vasisthas Yoga was supposedly spoken during the time of Rama, but it mentions the Buddha Shakyamuni in it and it's terminology and it's texts were found in the A.C. of time repute.

 

Anyway... like I said, you have not understood a single word I've spoken. I'll be patient though...

 

You keep projecting Hindu interpretation onto an entirely different way of thinking and interpretation of experience itself. No Buddhist agree's with you, because you are wrong. They are not the same! The switch of understanding that just hasn't been turned on yet though.

 

There is wisdom in all paths, no denying that, but the Buddha is specific about what liberation is in Buddhism and it is different than what liberation is in other traditions. It's not a frame work, it's just how the cosmos works. You still take featureless, conceptualess consciousness as a basis, that is a frame work, some sort of borge like framework and sucks all other frameworks into it and say's there all the same. That's a dogma! A Hindu dogma, which the Buddha did not agree with from the very beginning.

 

Study more Buddhism before you claim to know what Buddhism teaches. Study it with an open mind leaving your Hindu interpretations at the door with your ego.

 

Hinduism is beautiful, it's a wonderful path and I experienced incredible states of consciousness, bliss, devotion, etc. But, later I found it's interpretation of these states to be lacking...

 

All the best.

 

Lol, I think you should fly to Italy and tell Namkai how he is 'suposed' to act.

Gold, you are good for a laugh and sometimes have nuggets of Gold (good sized ones) among your diatribes, but sometimes you just sound like you stopped taking your Medication recently .

 

Mind you I have noticed the Insecurity you mentioned in the Dzogchen community's. I think this is because the people involved are glad that they are in what they are told is the Highest teaching and yet are fully aware that they dont really understand it and are worried that they are doing it 'wrong' - It is supossed to be an Instant awakening path but they know they are not awake... How come I cant walk through walls or rainbow body yet? It is supposed to be the easiest thing in the world...

that creates a lot of second guessing oneself.

 

Its not my place to tell you how to act and please continue if its really satisfying for you, but I do think you would probably have much better conversations with others if you stopped calling everyone Morons and Idiots and dick heads.

Also everyone can get a bit preachy at times but you often manage to take it to whole new levels...

I think you know what i am talking about.

anyway have fun.

 

Instant awakening path? No... just an instant glimpse path where we have to practice that glimpse through various methods until it is permanent. Also, many people in Dzogchen don't actually study the texts, but many do. I find there are tons of incredibly secure Dzogchenpas, I guess it's not your karma to meet them?

 

As far as Chogyal Namkhai Norbus insecurities... I think he's a mirror for goldisheavy. He must be seeing his own insecurities.

 

See some of his videos, around the world with Lama 1 and 2 and do some retreats with him. I only see his enlightenment! I have many incredible lucid experiences, in my dreams and corroborated through talks and emails with him. He's an aaaaaaamazing teacher of a super high caliber. I see some highly realized Dzogchenpas under his wing too. But, whatever...

 

I think my vision is better than yours. Rofl!

[goldisheavy]

Lol, I think you should fly to Italy and tell Namkai how he is 'suposed' to act.

Gold, you are good for a laugh

 

You're one of the few people who get me then. If you laugh when you read my nonsense, that's exactly what I want. If some wisdom happens to slip through, that's just more fun. I try to be entertaining. Well, I try to entertain myself. But I think if anyone gets a kick out of my dance, so much the better.

 

When one gets very serious about spiritual progress, one can no longer afford to be so serious anymore. It sounds funny, but I think it's true.

 

Mind you I have noticed the Insecurity you mentioned in the Dzogchen community's. I think this is because the people involved are glad that they are in what they are told is the Highest teaching and yet are fully aware that they dont really understand it and are worried that they are doing it 'wrong' - It is supossed to be an Instant awakening path but they know they are not awake...

 

I think you are probably right. But also, conventionally, historically, Dzogchen has always been at odds with some of the more dogmatic elements of Buddhism. There have been Buddhist teachers time and again that have criticized Dzogchen as heretical, and the Dozgchenpas have found themselves on the defensive from time to time. But really it's silly. At least, if you defend yourself, don't defend based on past history. Defend based on good insight that you offer RIGHT NOW, not based on he said she said from 10000 years ago. That's my opinion.

 

How come I cant walk through walls or rainbow body yet? It is supposed to be the easiest thing in the world... that creates a lot of second guessing oneself.

 

Actually that's a damn, damn good question. Any real Dzogchen master can talk in-depth about it and can answer it right away without the run-around bullshit. In fact I can answer it if anyone asks me and I am not even a real master. I am a fake one.

 

Its not my place to tell you how to act and please continue if its really satisfying for you, but I do think you would probably have much better conversations with others if you stopped calling everyone Morons and Idiots and dick heads.

 

Why? First of all, I don't say it too seriously. I mean, if I was more conventional, I say "unwise" or "reckless", or if I want to be really soft as a feather, I say "hasty", but I say "morons". Big deal. I am yours. You can tell me what to do. Everyone does! People have told me what to do, think, and what not to do the second I joined this forum. It's all in good fun! If I cannot take the heat, I need to get out of the kitchen. Besides, imagine if I go to the meeting of Dzogchenpas and tell them, "oh listen, some people told me what to do, and I got so offended by it, I was paralyzed and didn't know what to do or not do". That's be so embarassing. I'd be laughed out. They'd say, "and you call yourself a sage? What kind of pussy are you? And you pretend you can tolerate the inconceivable manifestations if you cannot even tolerate being told what to do? What kind of moron do you think you are, gold? You joking? That's not how we roll. GTFO here."

 

Also everyone can get a bit preachy at times but you often manage to take it to whole new levels...

I think you know what i am talking about.

anyway have fun.

 

Indeed. It's mostly training for you guys. You should learn to ignore preachy behavior and egoism. If I give you just the right amount, it will act as a vaccine. Then when a real asshole shows up (as opposed to a fake one like me, a clown) then you'll be inoculated and won't take anything seriously. In this manner I will put an end to organized religion in my mind stream. I decided I've had enough of it. It's been a decent run, but it's time to melt it down for other ornaments.

[Vajrahridaya]

Advaita can reveal the same truth as Buddhism and the same as Daoism and the same thing can also be revealed by non-traditional and largely original methods. This doesn't make Buddhism less valuable. This doesn't make Daoism less valuable. There is no need to get insecure and to start defending your pet doctrine.

 

But they actually don't, the more substantialist one's do and the experiential level is quite similar and interpretation. But Buddhism parts way's in being totally non-dualistically unsubstantial. The subtle differences create a very subtle difference in the way one interprets experience and thus acts upon the experiences that happen in meditation.

 

Anyway, I would suggest studying the Masters, because Milarepa declared how different they are. Nagarjuna declared the difference and so did the Buddha.

 

This new age theory of they all lead to the same thing, all paths to the same city, all ways up the same mountain? If you understand dependent origination, then you understand that the fruit originates dependent upon the seed planted and the ground it is planted on. Very clear thinking. The experience might be yes, clear openness and wondrous beauty, I love everyone. But Buddhism is very clear on what to do with this experience and how to interpret this experience so that it does actually lead to liberation from unconscious rebirth in a way that no other tradition is. It's very subtle, it's hard to understand without direct experience. I know because I used to argue from the all is one perspective for years with Buddhists. I was much like goldisheavy and seth, with experience to back it up, scholars, texts, quotes, mis-understood buddhist quotes, mis-contextualized information from Buddhism, on and on. But, I was corrected, slowly but surely.

 

Have a wonderful night!

[goldisheavy]

As far as Chogyal Namkhai Norbus insecurities... I think he's a mirror for goldisheavy. He must be seeing his own insecurities.

 

Dream on brother. I am his mirror more like. And yours too. I am the master of meanings; not their slave. I say what's what in this mind stream. When you internalize authenticity and authority like yours truly, then come talk to me again. So I'll see you 10000 lives from now, if you are very lucky and have been doing your homework.

 

But they actually

 

It's obvious you haven't even begun to contemplate, or the words "they" and "actually" would not appear so flippantly in the same sentence! What's actual? Do things have actual representation? Is there ACTUAL meaning of words? Next thing you'll say that there is some substance somewhere and that meanings are stable and are not alive.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dream on brother. I am his mirror more like. And yours too. I am the master of meanings; not their slave. I say what's what in this mind stream. When you internalize authenticity and authority like yours truly, then come talk to me again. So I'll see you 10000 lives from now, if you are very lucky and have been doing your homework.

It's obvious you haven't even begun to contemplate, or the words "they" and "actually" would not appear so flippantly in the same sentence! What's actual? Do things have actual representation? Is there ACTUAL meaning of words? Next thing you'll say that there is some substance somewhere and that meanings are stable and are not alive.

 

Your greatest lier is in the mirror.

 

You sure project a whole lot of your own issues onto others.

 

You can continue on until you are sick of it.

 

Maybe I'll see you then?

[Sunya]

 

 

What I was trying to show with this thread was that they are all the same. Sunyata, Emptiness, Void, Tao, Brahman, Aatman. We can go on and on about it and not get anywhere...

 

 

 

and yet you have not done so, since every argument that has been made against your pronouncements has been ignored,

[Seth Ananda]

Yes, Siddha Yoga... it has real shaktipat, it follows the teachings of Abhinavagupta and Kshemaraja, has many scholars of the Kaula tradition, some of the most important ones on earth in fact that practice it. So incomplete? That would be your opinion. Swami Muktananda started practicing the practices of the Tantraloka in secret towards the end of his life, but fully taught the 36 tattvas and the teachings of the Shiva Sutras. He had incredible Siddhi's and realization, etc. He was a great yogi of high realization within the Shaivite system. But you are entitled to your opinion.

 

Sorry Vajrahridaya I dont know how to do the proper quote thingy.

Yes It does have proper Shaktipat, my first teacher within the tradition was Authorised and taught to give it by Muktananda and he taught and Authorised me to do the same.

Interestingly The source or Connector for Shaktipat as given By Muktananda is Muktananda's guru Nityananda.

Nityananda was not a Kashmir shavite.

Muktananda Loved the Shavite teachings and did a lot to spread awareness of the teachings as he felt they mirrored his experiences closley. Nevertheless His base was in the strongly Vedic view of the universe as taught by Nityananda.

He never had a Kashmir Shavite teacher and worked it out as best he could just reading the texts. This is why I said he has an Incomplete understanding of Kashmir Shavism. He did meet Swami Lakshmanjoo and they loved each other but that does not equal a complete understanding of the system.

 

And I dissagree with you saying that consciousness changes with the content. Consciousness is the Field the content happens in. Anything can happen in side it but consciousness remains the same, just simply experiencing whatever is within it.

My argument for this is that we are Conscious 'of' something which Implies a separation from the content.

In the process of realising Turiya one sets about to regain awareness of consciousness in all its states.

Often one starts with dreams as its easier there to hold awareness of consciousness than the next stage - Unconsciousness and deep sleep.

It is only unconscious from the point of view of the waking state which cant really remember even much of sleep let alone Deep sleep or unconsciousness.

So you can remain Conscious right through waking, dreaming, deep sleep and so called un-consciousness.

And in all these States Consciousness does what it always does - Just is aware of everything that is happening.

Without changing.

 

Just because you from the limited waking state perspective cant remember being conscious in the other states

doesn't mean that you are not, or that consciousness is some how Changing. My example should cover that of the dream memory you loose as you awaken.

Here you were obviously conscious in the dream and had just enough to know it was there at awakening but lost the memory of it nonetheless.

If Turiya was established you would loose no memory of anything, ever.

And all the content would be continuously changing within everlasting consciousness

 

And I too talk with Gods and Goddesses, and Saints, and Bodhisattvas, and to my Inner being but the difference I feel as to when I Focus my attention On God, capital G, Parama Shiva, The Whole...

I know who I am talking too and I know who Talks back. It is completely different. So your answer doesnt cut it for me... And say for argument sake That it did, why would a Bodhisattva (promoting a universe without an underlying Deity) pretend to be God? wouldnt it be far more Enlightening for me, if he didnt answer thus showing me the truth that there is no God.

Its like saying that you me and gold are having a conversation and I ask you a question and Gold steps in the way and pretends to be you and answers himself.

Sorry I don't buy it.

[Seth Ananda]

I am a great Fan Of Namkai Norbu by the way. I went to a transmission of his when I was younger and hadnt really heard of him and I had a full blown experience of encompassing most of the city block.

I could see everyone from kind of like everywhere in the building out of the building, in the gardens, car park, the street, the trees, cars... I would watch people walk up the street turn up the path enter the foyer and turn into the Hall we were in and then I would check with my eyes as they came in to make sure it was the same, and it was. Exactly.

Been a fan ever since.

Some of the Kashmir Shavite exercises are brilliant for producing this as well

[Sunya]

 

And I too talk with Gods and Goddesses, and Saints, and Bodhisattvas, and to my Inner being but the difference I feel as to when I Focus my attention On God, capital G, Parama Shiva, The Whole...

I know who I am talking too and I know who Talks back. It is completely different. So your answer doesnt cut it for me... And say for argument sake That it did, why would a Bodhisattva (promoting a universe without an underlying Deity) pretend to be God? wouldnt it be far more Enlightening for me, if he didnt answer thus showing me the truth that there is no God.

 

 

Vajra would know better than I since I am just a beginner in Tibetan Budds

 

in Vajrayana you commune with Diety in a personal form, but its a form of your enlightened nature of mind. Wisdom exists as a quality of the true nature of mind and sometimes, the karmic obscurations like dirty clouds clear away and the sun shines forth and clear light and visionary dreams are experienced, or even waking life encounters. but due to your karma you still perceive this wisdom as coming from a separate source when in fact it is a quality of your true nature.

 

mindstreams are infinite, beginningless, and separate. and yet the qualities are the same: wisdom, emptiness, compassion. so a thought experiment, you have 2 Buddhas in the same room. they are separate mind stream, not the same, but they both have the same qualities of infinite wisdom. this does not mean that they are both connected to some source of wisdom, or God, but rather wisdom is a quality of the true nature of mind.

Edited May 28, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

'Seth Ananda'

 

 

Sorry Vajrahridaya I dont know how to do the proper quote thingy.

Yes It does have proper Shaktipat, my first teacher within the tradition was Authorised and taught to give it by Muktananda and he taught and Authorised me to do the same.

Interestingly The source or Connector for Shaktipat as given By Muktananda is Muktananda's guru Nityananda.

Nityananda was not a Kashmir shavite.

Muktananda Loved the Shavite teachings and did a lot to spread awareness of the teachings as he felt they mirrored his experiences closley. Nevertheless His base was in the strongly Vedic view of the universe as taught by Nityananda.

He never had a Kashmir Shavite teacher and worked it out as best he could just reading the texts. This is why I said he has an Incomplete understanding of Kashmir Shavism. He did meet Swami Lakshmanjoo and they loved each other but that does not equal a complete understanding of the system.

 

I agree, who knows, but I have read outside of the system. He only started talking about Kashmir Shaivism towards the last mmm... maybe 5 or 6 years of his carrier as a living Siddha Guru?

 

He was very lucid and clear in his interpretations and contextualizing of the Kaula texts... very masterful. He was a great being for sure... in his own right. I feel he would have benefited more from a Vajrayana Guru retreat guide though, he wouldn't have gone through all those confusions and if he had of learned Dzogchen? Even better.

 

And I dissagree with you saying that consciousness changes with the content. Consciousness is the Field the content happens in. Anything can happen in side it but consciousness remains the same, just simply experiencing whatever is within it.

My argument for this is that we are Conscious 'of' something which Implies a separation from the content.

In the process of realising Turiya one sets about to regain awareness of consciousness in all its states.

Often one starts with dreams as its easier there to hold awareness of consciousness than the next stage - Unconsciousness and deep sleep.

It is only unconscious from the point of view of the waking state which cant really remember even much of sleep let alone Deep sleep or unconsciousness.

So you can remain Conscious right through waking, dreaming, deep sleep and so called un-consciousness.

And in all these States Consciousness does what it always does - Just is aware of everything that is happening.

Without changing.

 

No it changes, it's own self definition of who or what is conscious changes, as it's awareness of content deepens to include a vaster space, it's identity to itself changes, when the unconscious is illumined, dreams start having more deeper meaning and one starts having lucid dreams and knows one is traveling in other dimensions and knows that the body is sleeping, one has out of body experiences, visions of great masters, etc. Psychic powers... whatever. The content and consciousness are all interconnected and tied together and everything is really just a pretty display of colors formated according to various concepts, enlightened or not. As consciousness becomes more aware of consciousness and transcends form, and formlessness, it pops out. If you like Kashmir Shaivism, you would benefit from studying some Dzogchen texts which are more in number and have more realized masters about it than Kashmir Shaivism. Even masters who attained the body of light recently even in the last year. Where they left nothing but nails and hair. There are great autobiographies by some great dzogchen masters too that are stunning. Poor Muktananda could have had a better retreat guide and would have had more clear understanding of his guidance if he was a Vajrayana practitioner... lol, karma is karma. But, consciousness is empty of consciousness too, even as a personal screen, even if featureless... so even consciousness is not any foot hold. The difference in interpretation is very subtle, but the realization is so freeing and deeply subtle.

 

Just because you from the limited waking state perspective cant remember being conscious in the other states

doesn't mean that you are not, or that consciousness is some how Changing. My example should cover that of the dream memory you loose as you awaken.

Here you were obviously conscious in the dream and had just enough to know it was there at awakening but lost the memory of it nonetheless.

If Turiya was established you would loose no memory of anything, ever.

And all the content would be continuously changing within everlasting consciousness

 

Yes but consciousness is still changing according to how much light it generates, how aware of awareness it is based upon the amount of context it includes within form and formless realms. I'm quite aware of my dreams and states in between due to meditative stability of some level or another and wake up often in dreams and have fabulous experiences in dreams. Consciousness and content are interdependent, Consciousness and awareness of consciousness are interdependent. It's very subtle this light that consciousness is that manifests as colors and coagulates as the screen of dark space to glimmer through into three dimensional objects of seeming separation like star spots in space that generate planets, different and unique solar systems, we generate objects of experience all reflecting our own level of awareness of awareness within the personal mind-stream. Yes, consciousness is still consciousness but it only is conscious as far as what it's conscious of, even of itself, even if content passes while it's unconscious, one can follow the chain of content and become conscious of the previously unconscious content, changing consciousness.

 

And I too talk with Gods and Goddesses, and Saints, and Bodhisattvas, and to my Inner being but the difference I feel as to when I Focus my attention On God, capital G, Parama Shiva, The Whole...

I know who I am talking too and I know who Talks back. It is completely different. So your answer doesnt cut it for me... And say for argument sake That it did, why would a Bodhisattva (promoting a universe without an underlying Deity) pretend to be God? wouldnt it be far more Enlightening for me, if he didnt answer thus showing me the truth that there is no God.

Its like saying that you me and gold are having a conversation and I ask you a question and Gold steps in the way and pretends to be you and answers himself.

Sorry I don't buy it.

 

You are the power behind these voices, they can only reflect what you already know, or have found out for yourself, you are omnipotent in your way of hearing and interpreting. You are probably talking to a theistic god realm representation based upon your own experience and understanding and not letting in another level of understanding on the psychic plane, because you are only open to what you deem experientially fact.

 

Physical karmas while in the physical body are much more tangible while you may be aware of other dimensions, and when you get there they are just as tangible or sometimes even more so without the body, tey are all mirrors of what you deem to be true to a certain extent, subjectivity is very, very strong. You only allow in what your shell has made holes for.

 

I am a great Fan Of Namkai Norbu by the way. I went to a transmission of his when I was younger and hadnt really heard of him and I had a full blown experience of encompassing most of the city block.

I could see everyone from kind of like everywhere in the building out of the building, in the gardens, car park, the street, the trees, cars... I would watch people walk up the street turn up the path enter the foyer and turn into the Hall we were in and then I would check with my eyes as they came in to make sure it was the same, and it was. Exactly.

Been a fan ever since.

Some of the Kashmir Shavite exercises are brilliant for producing this as well

 

Yes, which is why I find Kaula Shaivism to be directly influenced by Dzogchen. You were experiencing the inherently empty and transparent nature of things, so your personal consciousness bloomed passed sense perception doors into consciousness as such levels of perception.

 

So... very awesome! I've also experienced this, and did on such a constant level that I went to a doctor and took medication and it only made me depressed and more agitated. But, I just more focused on my practice and let the med's go, and I felt happiness is the best protection from needless psychic phenomena.

 

I find that the Shiva Sutra and the Prajnabhijahridayam are quite reflective in a way to Dzogchen contemplations without the subtle layer of identity to consciousness as an all pervasive Self that's eternal and unchanging.

[evZENy]

Once again, apologies for my existence (or the illusion of it, if you prefer :-)

 

Not familiar with Kashmir Shaivism. But happen to be learning from another Siddha tradition.

I enjoyed greatly the explanation by T.N. Ganapathy in "The Yoga of Siddha Boganathar" on the Siddha systems and the problems in learning about the lives, teachings and even identities of the Siddhas.

 

In the case of Bogar, who my teacher accepts as his own guru, there are lots of texts, supposedly written by himself. Full with magic and unbelievable accounts. Which gives the charm that many teachers have. For one, there is a theory, that he is Lao Tzu himself, which suits me perfect as then I have both worlds in one :-)

 

I find this lineage quite interesting, very practical and applicable.

While firmly attached to the scriptures, they seem to put a strong stress on one's own effort in finding the truth.

Hence from my point of view, I do see lots of parallels with other mystic based teachings, incl. Tao.

 

How this relates to the discussion?

The most ignorant of you all, I dare suggest that even if we do not agree on the sameness of the concepts which started this thread (Dwai), we probably shouldn't be comparing teachings which are so broad, they can hardly be described systematically.

 

Hinduism doesn't have a creator, so it relies on tons of scriptures.

But how can you say what Hinduism means, if there are thousands of years and millions of words which all claim to be Hinduism? Even the different Siddha tradition look as different as separate religions!

 

Buddhism has an originator, who used mainly Hinduist concepts to help the other realize in the same way he did.

But did Buddha himself created all the heavy material discussed here? Or was it put down by followers of his followers of his followers...?

Would he sign in the same way under Mahayana, Theravāda and Vajrayāna? And under each of their branches?

If "yes", then all their differences don't matter. If "no", then some are better or all are wrong.

Didn't he say "Appo Deepo Bhava" to remind us not to get attached even to him and his teaching?

Isn't that the sign of the true master?

 

Shouldn't we find a path that works for us, change if we feel like it. And stop wasting days and months comparing mental contructions than actually go into practice? To REALIZE these concepts.

 

Since I haven't quoted anything yet, here is one. The last sentence of a not bad book:

 

" ...only Buddhists have developed deep meditation. Everything else in Buddhism is just a help - not significant. You can even discard it. If you can meditate without any other help, then you can discard the rest."

 

And even that is not the whole truth, as the author likes to tell in other books :-)

Edited May 28, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Since I haven't quoted anything yet, here is one. The last sentence of a not bad book:

 

" ...only Buddhists have developed deep meditation. Everything else in Buddhism is just a help - not significant. You can even discard it. If you can meditate without any other help, then you can discard the rest."

 

And even that is not the whole truth, as the author likes to tell in other books :-)

 

Ah, but meditation just means focus. If one studies the 8 fold noble path, the Buddha is very specific about what, "Right View" means and what it doesn't mean. One must meditate with right view. Wolves meditate upon their prey and get it...

 

Theists meditate on an all pervasive Self and thus when phenomena falls away they dissolve their consciousness in that for a certain time, only to pop out eventually when the conditions of focus loose their power and they re-express ignorantly in a new cosmic cycle.

 

Buddhist meditate on the non-self nature of all phenomena from formless featureless concepts to concepts with form, so only offer compassion and remain conscious in manifestation from moment to moment because Samsara is beginning-less and endless without a source.

 

The view is different, the result is different. Meditation is not the same for everyone.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

The view is different, the result is different. Meditation is not the same for everyone.

 

Bravo!

[Vajrahridaya]

The view of Buddhism is that there is no view that has inherent existence and all views are dependently originated, so that is the difference. Theists or any other systems view is based on the fact that there is a viewer that is inherent, either a flow, a supreme consciousness, or an inherently existing causeless cause.

 

Edited for clarity in the end of the final sentence.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

The view of Buddhism is that there is no view that has inherent existence and all views are dependently originated, so that is the difference. Theists or any other systems view is based on the fact that there is a viewer that is inherent, either a flow, a supreme consciousness, or an inherently existing causeless cause.

 

 

 

yes and furthermore there is this idea in most mystical traditions that you're on the path, evolution will take you to the goal, the purpose of life is to attain this goal of oneness or unity or whatever, so you'll get there eventually. this implies that the correct view inherently exists, that all you have to do is "let go and with the flow" or just build up a lot of chi and circulate it through the chakras, that this will bring one to ultimate realization. this implies that view is not important

 

but looking at dependent origination, we see that from cause comes effect, so fruit depends on the seed. simply letting go will not bring you to the ultimate fruit of liberation because no seed was planted, which only comes from having right view,

 

Tibetan Tantra that works with the subtle body is pretty similiar to Hindu Kundalini Yoga and Taoist alchemy of jing-chi-shen, but there is a reason why Tibetan masters don't give out these techniques to just anyone, right view has to be there. right view does not come from watching your breath, or circulating energy, because it isn't inherent. it takes work to change from wrong view to right view, so doing these techniques without wrong view is dangerous, many here prefer the open source techniques and think that Lamas have big egos for not teaching everyone the secret stuff, I think that this is because they believe view isn't important, and dependent origination is not understood.

 

Due to many lifetimes of wrong view we have many many many mental afflictions, these can be very subtle and very gross. to get rid of only the gross afflictions leaves many subtle ones as well. simply letting go and doing alchemical work does not take care of subtle afflictions that bring one into wrong view.

Edited May 28, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

and Emptiness does not mean non-phenomenal. you are positing that phenomena does not exist simply because its empty. empty does not mean non existant. this is another extreme. phenomena neither exists nor non-exists.

 

all you're doing is taking Nagarjuna's philosophy and putting it into a Vedantic context, which is what Gaudapada did, but that won't work because Buddhism will never say that something exists behind phenomena, like a background screen which is the source of everything.

Precisely, the emptiness here is obviously not relating to the 'formlessness' or the 'non-phenomenality' of an inherent essence, consciousness, etc. There is no denying of forms, phenomena, and so on. Only that these forms, appearances, are empty of any inherent existence. And this emptiness is none other than those vivid phenomena themselves, emptiness does not deny non-dual luminosity and cannot be separated from non-dual luminosity. Emptiness is not talking about the absence of form and phenomena -- all these are vividly appearing yet empty. There is no non-phenomenal consciousness behind phenomenality -- to quote a highly realised friend of mine, "...It (this witness) is not unchanging, but is simply a knowingness that is not apart from the flow of phenomenality."

 

As Heart Sutra so clearly stated:

 

"Form is empty, emptiness is form; form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form.

Likewise, sensation, discrimination, conditioning, and awareness are empty. In this way, Sariputra, all things are emptiness; they are without defining characteristics; they are not born, they do not cease, they are not defiled, they are not undefiled. They have no increase, they have no decrease."

 

Obviously we cannot separate emptiness separate from form and phenomena! Anything teaching that does that is not teaching the Buddhist emptiness, but rather is referring to a formless, independent, eternal essence and hence not in accord with Buddhist teachings.

 

Emptiness is not talking about the extreme of non-existence, or absence of form, rather it is saying there is no inherent, independent essence to self and dharmas. Hence a 'formless, shapeless essence' is not empty at all since it still assumes an independent, inherent essence, and falls under the extreme of eternalism and thus is not what Buddhism taught.

 

 

 

p.s. This is not referring to anyone in particular but in general for all posters including myself: I think debating is great and I am certainly for it, but we should do it with an open mind of learning, listening what others are saying and also helping others learn and not for the purpose of 'winning' or dogmatically defending or imposing one's own viewpoint or ego.

 

Just saw a good video by a Rinpoche yesterday on the benefits of debate and how to debate properly I thought is very good and worth sharing:

Edited May 28, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

and yet you have not done so, since every argument that has been made against your pronouncements has been ignored,

 

You feel that they have been ignored. I have responded, you just can't see it.

I don't have to repeat myself ad nauseum. Everything I said is clearly seen through the 3-pillars of Jnana Yoga.

 

1) Principle of Dependent Origination

2) Principle of Superimposition

3) Theory of Two-truths

 

You are too caught up in syntax. You are missing the meaning...

Edited May 28, 2009 by dwai

[dwai]

T

No, I don't lack in my understanding. I know what they teach. Maya is the phenomenal expression of consciousness, maya is the illusion of duality, maya is this and that. Only pure consciousness is the real basis, Everything is made of one consciousness, is expressed then re-absorbed, then expressed. This is all called Samsara in Buddhism.

 

Anyway... no Advaita Vedanta does not pre-date the Buddha. It starts with Gaudapada's interpretation of the Upanishads. There was no advaita vedanta during the time of the Buddha. Vasisthas Yoga was supposedly spoken during the time of Rama, but it mentions the Buddha Shakyamuni in it and it's terminology and it's texts were found in the A.C. of time repute.

 

Anyway... like I said, you have not understood a single word I've spoken. I'll be patient though...

 

You keep projecting Hindu interpretation onto an entirely different way of thinking and interpretation of experience itself. No Buddhist agree's with you, because you are wrong. They are not the same! The switch of understanding that just hasn't been turned on yet though.

 

There is wisdom in all paths, no denying that, but the Buddha is specific about what liberation is in Buddhism and it is different than what liberation is in other traditions. It's not a frame work, it's just how the cosmos works. You still take featureless, conceptualess consciousness as a basis, that is a frame work, some sort of borge like framework and sucks all other frameworks into it and say's there all the same. That's a dogma! A Hindu dogma, which the Buddha did not agree with from the very beginning.

 

Study more Buddhism before you claim to know what Buddhism teaches. Study it with an open mind leaving your Hindu interpretations at the door with your ego.

 

Hinduism is beautiful, it's a wonderful path and I experienced incredible states of consciousness, bliss, devotion, etc. But, later I found it's interpretation of these states to be lacking..

 

And that is your personal opinion. I hold steadfast that Brahman and Shunyata and Tao are the same. When one transcends categorical frameworks, the absolute consciousness, which is objectless and is the Ultimate Truth doesn't change based on what the categorical framework says.

 

It is not a matter of what one or two or two million Buddhists think. The flaw is in their understanding in such a case. This inference arises from logic and not understanding this demonstrates a lack of logic.

 

I will venture to categorically re-iterate what it is I am saying and why I am saying it...this is (my insight) is not a unique one. I just prefer to see the similarities which transcend the differences, that's all.

 

All said and done, like my friend pointed out, I am not a realized master. I have a feeling none of the posters here are (for those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know). I am a seeker who's trying to see beyond traditions and understand and experience Tao/Brahman.

 

I am not saying Buddhism doesn't have it's unique insights into Truth. But that doesn't mean Buddhists can make silly claims like "My tradition is better than yours" and not expect to be challenged by it.

 

Till now, no one has been able to logically show me that my standpoint is wrong. All you guys do is quote other guys and try and validate things referentially. The Experience part will arise when the time is right. The intellectual part has to be correct, without which we will end up becoming deluded if the experience doesn't result in complete prajna.

 

Again how do I know this, intuitively.

[xabir2005]

You feel that they have been ignored. I have responded, you just can't see it.

I don't have to repeat myself ad nauseum. Everything I said is clearly seen through the 3-pillars of Jnana Yoga.

 

1) Principle of Dependent Origination

2) Principle of Superimposition

3) Theory of Two-truths

 

You are too caught up in syntax. You are missing the meaning...

1) Advaita Vedanta does not teach Dependent Origination.

 

2) Buddhism's emptiness and dependent origination has nothing to do with Superimposition. Phenomena as explained many times, in Buddhism is not unreal or an illusion or superimposed. They are not an illusion that disappears when Brahman the reality is realised.

 

Whereas Advaita sees the world as superimposition and mere projected perception and cognition and an illusion -- Buddhism sees phenomena not as an illusion, but as illusory-like appearances -- like a mirage, but totally vivid and luminous. Apparent but nothing inherently 'in here' or 'out there', unlocatable, ungraspable, without independent essence (it's dependently originated).

 

So, in Buddhism the world of appearances will not disappear even after enlightenment because it is not an illusion or superimposition. Illusion-like (NOT illusional) or mirage-like appearances continue to manifest vividly, just that there is no longer the false vision of seeing dualistically and inherently. Whatever manifests is interdependently originated, nothing inherent.

 

Nirvana is samsara rightly seen. Nirvana is not a separate transcendence from the relative world of phenomena, and ultimate truth in Buddhism has nothing to do with a transcendent superspace behind manifestation. In Buddhism, Nirvana = non-dual, non-inherent, pure vision of the world, hence no suffering. Samsara = dualistic, inherent, impure vision of the world, hence suffering. It has nothing to do with transcending an illusory world to the Absolute Reality of Brahman. Nothing to do with seeing through the forms to realise a formless substratum. The forms themselves are ultimate truth (luminous and empty).

 

3) As explained above, Buddhism does not see relative (D.O.) and ultimate truth (emptiness) as separate. Relative truth refers to all phenomena as interdependently originated, and what interdependently originates is empty, unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise and cease -- hence relative truth and ultimate truth as inseparable. This is incompatible with what some Advaitins do that is to separate the relative from the Absolute Brahman.

Edited May 28, 2009 by xabir2005