The Eternal Self of the Buddha

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Infinite mind streams attain liberation all the time within infinite space and time. There's no limits, it's uncountable.

 

They intermingle... there's no real subsentence there for merging to actually happen. Do you mean like can two mind streams become one? No, unless one is to see through time and see that your mind stream right now is a collection of a whole bunch of streams of experience since beginningless time, but that's what a mind stream is. An enlightened being through his or her heaps of merit, collected pure intention energy can manifest many different streams of mind reflective of the one intention to liberate beings but cannot actually liberate all beings at will. So, this one enlightened beings Sambhogakaya can become many Nirmanakayas.

 

But, there is no supreme will according to Buddhism. No soul controller of the entire mass of Samsara.

 

Nirvana Sutra doesn't even allude to that, it just alludes to the fact that we all have the garbha, or potential, for tathagata, or enlightenment to transcend Samsara. That is the true home, true place, true way to be for a Buddha. That's what the term atman refers to in this sutra. Not a Self of all. Though one does attain omnipresence, one does not attain omnipotence.

 

Buddhanature is not established either and upon investigation, cannot be found to inherently exist outside of it's relative meaning as the potentiality of all conscious beings. This relativity is based upon the absolute truth that all is inherently empty, and this realization becomes an endless positivity as a Buddha, or Tathagata.

 

These new Western scholars who are influenced by Theism are just not getting the subtleties.

There are many tathagatagarbha sutras. You can't just read one of them. You have to read them all to get an idea of what it's alluding to.

 

Read again what... tathagatagarbha means...

 

Garbha means potential, and Tathagata means thus gone. Meaning the potential to be thus gone, Nirvana, blown out...

 

The realization is positive. The realization that all things and beings have always been empty of inherent existence. Like the first statement of the Buddha... "mind is uncompounded and pure since beginningless time".

 

It's the realization of yes, what already is. But, no, it's not a true inherent existence, other than that all things are inherently empty of essence, which is the essential nature and potential to be a Buddha. Do you get it?

 

The words in the Sutra are tricking you because you don't have context.

Of course it's reification in Vedanta. It's reified as the one ultimate reality. The real source of all existence, the real that makes the unreal seem real.

 

In Trika Shaivism (Kashmir Shaivism), it's the real of the real as the base of things are real, so are all it's expressions as the Nataraj and Lila is real. There is no illusion other than mis-cognition of this real true substance of the universe the soul of all things that is all things simultaneously.

 

This is not the Buddhist realization.

 

tathAgata is actually tathA Agata (or Thus Arrived). Though I can understand the cause for such confusion...

 

Well if it is reified in Vedanta it is reified in Buddhism. Because Buddha replaces the "I" with the "Thatagata" (One who has Thus Arrived). But there is this "One" always...the latent potentiality within every sentient being that is obscured by avidya. There is nothing "tricked out" in the words of the Sutra.

[Vajrahridaya]

tathAgata is actually tathA Agata (or Thus Arrived). Though I can understand the cause for such confusion...

 

Well if it is reified in Vedanta it is reified in Buddhism. Because Buddha replaces the "I" with the "Thatagata" (One who has Thus Arrived). But there is this "One" always...the latent potentiality within every sentient being that is obscured by avidya. There is nothing "tricked out" in the words of the Sutra.

 

Thus arrived, thus gone... same meaning in reflection.

 

You are gone from the experience of Samsara and arrived at the experience of Nirvana.

 

Do you ignore Xabir's posts? Just wondering. He's cleared the misunderstanding up quite well.

 

What latent potentiality means in Buddhism and what it means in Vedanta is different.

 

For us, it's latent as in all things are originated dependently and are inherently empty, we and our consciousness is included in this, "all things". Just as explained in the Pali Suttas and in other Mahayana Sutras.

[dwai]

[Vajrahridaya]

[dwai]

It doesn't mean the same as the Vedantin or Upanishad Self though.

 

You can ignore this if you wish, that's up to you. But, the Buddha said clearly that it is not the same as Brahman, no matter how it sounds to you. The Buddha said it's not the same...

 

It is not a God of the universe, it's not the source of all things, it's not deemed as the creator of things.

 

There is an endless creative matrix/dharmakaya/pratitsamutpada, but it's subtle how different it is from the idea of a creating primal entity that is described in Hinduism.

 

Therefore...

 

The Buddha said in the Lankavatara Sutra...

Your creating your own type of Buddhism Dwai which the Buddha never taught based upon your mistaken assumptions. You see the word "self" in Buddhist scripture and you go crazy! Finding your foothold to subvert all previous Buddhas and enlightened commentators throughout antiquity, saying that the Shakyamuni Buddha taught this and you guys all don't get it. That's pretty assumptive. Considering that Xabir has posted many posts describing through valid sources what tathagatagarbha means in the context of Buddhist cosmology.

 

 

All I'm saying is that there are differences between various streams of Buddhism as well. Anyone who doesn't kowtow to pratityasamutpada will interpret the above exactly as I have.

 

Your entire outlook is hinged upon the categorical framework of Dependent Origination. Which is incomplete and doesn't explain existence at all...infact it tries and explains it away, thus jumping through hoops when no such jumping is necessary!

[Vajrahridaya]

All I'm saying is that there are differences between various streams of Buddhism as well. Anyone who doesn't kowtow to pratityasamutpada will interpret the above exactly as I have.

 

Your entire outlook is hinged upon the categorical framework of Dependent Origination. Which is incomplete and doesn't explain existence at all...infact it tries and explains it away, thus jumping through hoops when no such jumping is necessary!

 

Nope, it explains it perfectly. Much better than an idea of a primal source or a primal Will to all things.

 

Also... absolutely every single school of Buddhism hinges on Dependent Origination. Just a very few reify emptiness. Most of the arguments are not at all about what Dependent Origination applies to, as it applies to everything, even your universal Self. It's sooo subtle that teaching... so deep. Nagarjuna's entire catalog hinges on it. Which you have yet to really read with objectivity, nor understand.

 

The Tathagatagarbha is clearly laid out by the Buddha to not be Brahman in the Lankavatara Sutra. The Dharmkaya is not a universal soul, or controller of all things.

 

There is no God, or ultimate personality at the helm of the wheel of Samsara.

 

Dependent Origination was sited in the Pali Suttas as the Dharma. To see Pratityasamutpada is to see the Dharma and to see the Dharma is to see the Buddha. You just don't understand Pratityasamutpada yet. You think it just applies to things outside of an ultimate subject so it's profundity has not yet hit your conscious mind yet. Much less your subconscious archetypes of Self which pratityamutpada empties if applied subtlety. See, Pratitsamutpada does not have an origin, it's not a superimposition.

 

Anyone who doesn't interpret the above with Pratityasamutpada part and parcel with the first of the 8 fold noble path "right view" is not interpreting the Buddhist way.

 

Plain and simple.

 

But of course, your not a Buddhist. Your a Hindu with a long familial history linked to that, so the identity is very strong.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

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

Edited August 3, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Your entire outlook is hinged upon the categorical framework of Dependent Origination.

 

Pratityasamutpada is the framework dissolver, including the framework of a cosmology that has a primal source of all existence. It dissolves the two Truths of Buddhism, it does more than dissolve the two truths of Vedanta, it actually reveals them as not even relatively true, except for someone still stuck in a Samsaric interpretation of things, then for that person, through the power of his or her mind, he or she will experience this as Truth, and recycle unconsciously. It's all explained in all the different turnings of the Buddhas wheel.

 

Pratitsamutpada reveals how one can have a real experience of a false conception... such as Theism.

 

The absorption of beyond being and non-being is not a place to identify everything with as the Upanishads do. The Buddha spoke this in the Pali Cannon.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Unconditioned]

I've read quite a few of the back and forth posts between Buddhism and Vedanta but I can't help but get the impression that they're both describing the same thing and we're getting caught in the description not the 'thing' (I use that loosely since there is no 'thing' apart from everything).

 

What is the difference between using a label for realization of no-self and the empty nature of all things (through awareness which provides the potentiality of realization) and using a label for the idea of atman-brahman to show no-self?

 

Both point to essentially, as in the essence/root, everything-nothing which cannot be represented accurately through a label in the first place. After that pure essential realization I can't help but feel we're just arguing one point of view versus another.

 

I call it everything-nothing, the Buddhist calls it emptiness due to D.O, and the Hindu calls it Brahman due to the no-self nature of the internal awareness, i.e. Atman.

 

Isn't the discrepancy layered on after that?

 

Edit: I also realize that my depth of spiritual insight could be getting in the way of understanding the true underlying differences here. I'm sure they are very subtle and I may not be aware of these subtleties yet. Which leaves the possibilities open rather than forming a static idea.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Unconditioned

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Isn't the discrepancy layered on after that?

 

Vedanta considers the state of absorption beyond conception to be an ultimate Self. This leads to reabsorption into a formless state of consciousness where all merits are burned up either at the end of one's life, or at the end of a cosmic eon.

 

So, it doesn't lead to liberation. The difference is in fact deeply subtle.

 

It's not just a non-conceptual realization, it's a realization of how all concepts and how the entire cosmos actually works. It doesn't work on the hinge of a supreme formless will.

 

This is why the Buddha did say in texts that it's not the same as the Atman of the Upanishads.

 

 

Edit: I also realize that my depth of spiritual insight could be getting in the way of understanding the true underlying differences here. I'm sure they are very subtle and I may not be aware of these subtleties yet. Which leaves the possibilities open rather than forming a static idea.

 

No, I get that from you... I feel that your pretty watery... as opposed to stoney.

 

 

To explain further. Atman is kind of an Alpha and Omega in Hinduism. While the Tathagatagarbha is really just an omega. This is figuratively speaking though. One can say both in many ways. The Tathagatagarbha is a source in a sense that it is the source of all liberation, and all the teachings leading to it's realization, because it's the truth that all buddhas realize. But, it's not a source of all existence. It's a realization of what "it's" are in nature; dependently originated and inherently empty of self essence.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Unconditioned]

Vedanta considers the state of absorption beyond conception to be an ultimate Self. This leads to reabsorption into a formless state of consciousness where all merits are burned up either at the end of one's life, or at the end of a cosmic eon.

 

So, it doesn't lead to liberation. The difference is in fact deeply subtle.

 

It's not just a non-conceptual realization, it's a realization of how all concepts and how the entire cosmos actually works. It doesn't work on the hinge of a supreme formless will.

 

This is why the Buddha did say in texts that it's not the same as the Atman of the Upanishads.

 

Thank you - that's one of the most "easy to understand by someone who doesn't know the details" answer I've had to that question to date

 

I see a trap of Atman/Brahman now... identification with some 'thing', even if that 'thing' is 'no-thing'. Still not choosing either side though

 

Vedanta considers the state of absorption beyond conception to be an ultimate Self. This leads to reabsorption into a formless state of consciousness where all merits are burned up either at the end of one's life, or at the end of a cosmic eon.

 

So, it doesn't lead to liberation. The difference is in fact deeply subtle.

 

It's not just a non-conceptual realization, it's a realization of how all concepts and how the entire cosmos actually works. It doesn't work on the hinge of a supreme formless will.

 

This is why the Buddha did say in texts that it's not the same as the Atman of the Upanishads.

No, I get that from you... I feel that your pretty watery... as opposed to stoney.

To explain further. Atman is kind of an Alpha and Omega in Hinduism. While the Tathagatagarbha is really just an omega. This is figuratively speaking though. One can say both in many ways. The Tathagatagarbha is a source in a sense that it is the source of all liberation, and all the teachings leading to it's realization, because it's the truth that all buddhas realize. But, it's not a source of all existence. It's a realization of what it's are in nature dependently originated and inherently empty of self essence.

 

Thank you

[dwai]

Nope, it explains it perfectly. Much better than an idea of a primal source or a primal Will to all things.

 

Also... absolutely every single school of Buddhism hinges on Dependent Origination. Just a very few reify emptiness. Most of the arguments are not at all about what Dependent Origination applies to, as it applies to everything, even your universal Self. It's sooo subtle that teaching... so deep. Nagarjuna's entire catalog hinges on it. Which you have yet to really read with objectivity, nor understand.

 

The Tathagatagarbha is clearly laid out by the Buddha to not be Brahman in the Lankavatara Sutra. The Dharmkaya is not a universal soul, or controller of all things.

 

There is no God, or ultimate personality at the helm of the wheel of Samsara.

 

Dependent Origination was sited in the Pali Suttas as the Dharma. To see Pratityasamutpada is to see the Dharma and to see the Dharma is to see the Buddha. You just don't understand Pratityasamutpada yet. You think it just applies to things outside of an ultimate subject so it's profundity has not yet hit your conscious mind yet. Much less your subconscious archetypes of Self which pratityamutpada empties if applied subtlety. See, Pratitsamutpada does not have an origin, it's not a superimposition.

 

Anyone who doesn't interpret the above with Pratityasamutpada part and parcel with the first of the 8 fold noble path "right view" is not interpreting the Buddhist way.

 

Plain and simple.

 

But of course, your not a Buddhist. Your a Hindu with a long familial history linked to that, so the identity is very strong.

 

I understand it very clearly...it shows that phenomena are empty. That which is not a phenomenon - ie Atman, Brahman, Tathagatagarbha, Tao, buddha-dhatu has self-nature and is self-aware.

 

I also understand that people will suffer from cognitive dissonance when they realize that everything that they believed in is in fact unfounded. Be it Hindu or Buddhist or anywhatever "ist".

 

If I'm a Hindu with deep with my familial history then you are a Neo-Buddhist convert who tries to overcompensate by resorting to fundamentalism.

 

Read again...this time slowly...

 

the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence

of a self, just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his

treasury. Noble Son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddhadhatu

[buddha-Nature]. This manner of Buddha-dhatu is shown in the Buddha-Dharma with

the example of the real sword. Noble Son, should there be any ordinary person who is able

well to expound this, then he [speaks] in accordance with unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma. Should

there be anyone who is well able to distinguish this in accordance with what has been expounded

regarding it, then you should know that he has the nature of a Bodhisattva.

Edited August 3, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

 

the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence

of a self, just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his

treasury. Noble Son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddhadhatu

[buddha-Nature]. This manner of Buddha-dhatu is shown in the Buddha-Dharma with

the example of the real sword. Noble Son, should there be any ordinary person who is able

well to expound this, then he [speaks] in accordance with unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma. Should

there be anyone who is well able to distinguish this in accordance with what has been expounded

regarding it, then you should know that he has the nature of a Bodhisattva.

 

 

Yes, and it's the realization that originates dependently upon seeing that all phenomena including consciousness is inherently empty of self existence, since beginningless time.

 

It is NOT the Self of the Upanishads. It's the Dharmakaya realization as a result of seeing dependent origination directly. Thereby it's the endless abode of a Buddha arisen dependent upon the cause of seeing the empty nature of all things. It is the effect of Buddhadharma realization.

 

It's not a source of all existence.

 

The subtlety is being missed here Dwai. It really is.

[dwai]

Yes, and it's the realization that originates dependently upon seeing that all phenomena including consciousness is inherently empty of self existence, since beginningless time.

 

It is NOT the Self of the Upanishads. It's the Dharmakaya realization as a result of seeing dependent origination directly. Thereby it's the endless abode of a Buddha arisen dependent upon the cause of seeing the empty nature of all things. It is the effect of Buddhadharma realization.

 

It's not a source of all existence.

 

The subtlety is being missed here Dwai. It really is.

 

It seems like there is more and more "subtlety" being invented, to retrofit into what seems like a shocking revelation...it is the same.

Edited August 3, 2009 by dwai

[goldisheavy]

Just in case anyone actually wants to contemplate this topic...

 

Here are some questions to get you started:

 

1. What does "self" mean?

 

2. If you don't know what it means, what are you negating?

 

4. If you do know what it means, then what is the basis for that knowledge?

 

5. If no basis can be found, go back to 2 again.

 

6. What is the difference between any two words?

 

7. Do words have permanent meanings? If not, then can "not-self" have the same meaning tomorrow as the "self" does today? If meanings are fixed, then what is the basis of that fixation? Try to find it experientially and analytically.

 

8. What does it mean when we say something is "symbolic"?

 

9. Is what's considered non-symbolic, symbolic? Or vice versa, is what's considered symbolic non-symbolic?

 

10. Is there a basis for making a distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic? Try to find it experientially and analytically.

 

11. Is your mind in the world or is the world in the mind?

 

12. Is there a difference between mind and world? If yes, what is the basis for it? Try to find it experientially and analytically.

 

Good luck.

Edited August 3, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

It seems like there is more and more "subtlety" being invented, to retrofit into what seems like a shocking revelation...it is the same.

 

I...I just don't get it Dwai...

 

If a Christian comes up to you, are you going to tell them that their God is the same as formless Brahma?

 

And do you tell all the Taoists that the Tao is the same thing as Brahma too and their concept of immortality is just a realization of the Self?

 

How do you know they are the same? Have you realized the Self? Did you become a Buddha and go "oh it's the same thing!"???

 

Why do you have this urge to equate everything? Why not break away from your Hindu identity and gain fresher perspectives? Or at least acknowledge the differences?

 

 

Just in case anyone actually wants to contemplate this topic...

 

Here are some questions to get you started:

 

1. What does "self" mean?

 

2. If you don't know what it means, what are you negating?

 

4. If you do know what it means, then what is the basis for that knowledge?

 

5. If no basis can be found, go back to 2 again.

 

6. What is the difference between any two words?

 

7. Do words have permanent meanings? If not, then can "not-self" have the same meaning tomorrow as the "self" does today? If meanings are fixed, then what is the basis of that fixation? Try to find it experientially and analytically.

 

8. What does it mean when we say something is "symbolic"?

 

9. Is what's considered non-symbolic, symbolic? Or vice versa, is what's considered symbolic non-symbolic?

 

10. Is there a basis for making a distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic? Try to find it experientially and analytically.

 

11. Is your mind in the world or is the world in the mind?

 

12. Is there a difference between mind and world? If yes, what is the basis for it? Try to find it experientially and analytically.

 

Good luck.

 

You should post this in the Discussion Topics thread.

[goldisheavy]

I...I just don't get it Dwai...

 

Why do you have this urge to equate everything?

 

I think I know why.

 

He's been reading Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra:

 

"What is equanimity? It is the equality of everything from self to liberation. Why? Because both self and liberation are void. How can both be void? As verbal designations, they both are void, and neither is established in reality. Therefore, one who sees such equality makes no difference between sickness and voidness; his sickness is itself voidness, and that sickness as voidness is itself void."

[dwai]

I...I just don't get it Dwai...

 

If a Christian comes up to you, are you going to tell them that their God is the same as formless Brahma?

 

First a clarification:

Brahma is not Brahman. Brahma is a pauranic (from the Puranas) Saguna form...a deity. Has nothing to do with Vedantic Brahman.

 

I'd tell the Christian that his God is Saguna Brahman. I'd tell the Jew and Moslem and Vaishnava and the Shaivite the same time.

 

 

And do you tell all the Taoists that the Tao is the same thing as Brahma too and their concept of immortality is just a realization of the Self?

 

How do you know they are the same? Have you realized the Self? Did you become a Buddha and go "oh it's the same thing!"???

 

Let me turn that around and ask you this -- How do you know what I'm saying is wrong. Have you realized Buddha-nature? Has any one of those posting here? You cannot disprove what I am saying...because the only way to do so is through personal experience. When you do experience, you will not need to prove or disprove anything. Till then, it is a matter of mentality and disposition...

 

I don't need to tell the serious Taoist anything...they already know. They are simply Wu Wei and trying to be in the flow...

 

Why do you have this urge to equate everything? Why not break away from your Hindu identity and gain fresher perspectives? Or at least acknowledge the differences?

 

I am open to all perspectives. I only have issues with those that claim exclusivity (like our buddies VH and Mikaelz did wrt Buddhism). I have never not-acknowledged the superficial differences. But the fact of the matter is that the differences are only that...superficial.

 

Some insights arise through spontaneous intuitions (called Prajna). Anyone who seriously meditates gets them. When you couple them with sound logic...they help dispel a lot of "he said she said" confusions and help ascertaining the veracity of claims.

[xabir2005]

[goldisheavy]

[JustARandomPanda]

Can someone tell me where (and what) Siddhartha Buddha is right this very minute?

 

*is curious*

[Sunya]

Let me turn that around and ask you this -- How do you know what I'm saying is wrong. Have you realized Buddha-nature? Has any one of those posting here? You cannot disprove what I am saying...because the only way to do so is through personal experience. When you do experience, you will not need to prove or disprove anything. Till then, it is a matter of mentality and disposition...

 

No Dwai, and this is what the Buddhists on this board have been trying to tell you. Buddhism is not a conceptual framework aimed at realizing the same insights as other religions. Buddhism is a finger that is pointing to a completely different moon, and without that finger you do not see that moon. since you are so hung up on an another finger, a finger that you were brought up with and thats part of your cultur eand identity, its very hard to break free of that finger and see that there are different moons. This is actually what is necessary to realize... the realization of the moon depends upon the finger because right fruit is preceded by right view. and there is a difference between 'recognizing' the dharma and 'realizing' the dharma. one can recognize the dharma by contemplating the philosophy logically, and one realizes the dharma through meditation. recognition is necessary before realization.

 

now Buddhists are all about skillful means and the Buddha taught different to different audiences because people have different karmas. the sutras you really like were aimed at people who dig the True Self stuff so it has that nice eternalistic sugar coating but beneath all that, Mahayana is as Buddhist as Theravada with its Anatta. It's completely wrong to take quotes from one sutra and think you know the truth of Buddha's teachings and ignore the rest. If you really dig that sutra thats great, but don't forget about the context, and don't forget about the other sutras too.

 

but you don't care about learning, you're only here to argue. you're only here to try to change our minds because you already 'know' that you're right. you're so deeply attached to your beliefs that it would take someone throwing you off a cliff to make you believe in gravity.

 

Some insights arise through spontaneous intuitions (called Prajna). Anyone who seriously meditates gets them. When you couple them with sound logic...they help dispel a lot of "he said she said" confusions and help ascertaining the veracity of claims.

 

insights are received but filtered through karmas and the conscious mind interprets those insights based on your unconscious beliefs. you have no received non-conceptual insights because you have deeply held beliefs. I'm sorry does it not make sense to you that there are deeply held beliefs and karmas and that these karmas affect your interpretation of insights/experience?

 

 

 

 

 

Can someone tell me where (and what) Siddhartha Buddha is right this very minute?

 

*is curious*

 

He died in 500 B.C.

 

right this minute there is no such being as Siddhartha Gautama.

 

depending on which school of Buddhism you like more, Siddhartha was either a man who attained enlightenment (Theravada school) or an already enlightened being who emanated a Nirmanakaya, or physical, body to teach beings Dharma where there was no longer any Dharma (Mahayana and Vajrayana school)

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'd tell the Christian that his God is Saguna Brahman. I'd tell the Jew and Moslem and Vaishnava and the Shaivite the same time.

 

Let me turn that around and ask you this -- How do you know what I'm saying is wrong. Have you realized Buddha-nature? Has any one of those posting here? You cannot disprove what I am saying...because the only way to do so is through personal experience. When you do experience, you will not need to prove or disprove anything. Till then, it is a matter of mentality and disposition...

 

The Buddhists here were presenting the doctrine and its differences with the Vedas. Your own opinion on Buddhism seems to differ, because you are attempting to equate everything under your own religious viewpoint.

 

I am open to all perspectives. I only have issues with those that claim exclusivity (like our buddies VH and Mikaelz did wrt Buddhism). I have never not-acknowledged the superficial differences. But the fact of the matter is that the differences are only that...superficial.

 

Differences are differences. I agree that the exclusive tone "oh, we Buddhists know the best" is idiotic, but if the followers of that or any tradition didn't think otherwise, why would they call themselves so-and-so in the first place?

 

And by the way,

 

It doesn't make sense that you're open to all perspectives as long as they aren't...different...

 

Some insights arise through spontaneous intuitions (called Prajna). Anyone who seriously meditates gets them. When you couple them with sound logic...they help dispel a lot of "he said she said" confusions and help ascertaining the veracity of claims.

 

Exactly. You build your own Path. Take it like gold says, take the teaching, use it, and move on. The Truth is never in the words anyway and if you really want to equate Dependent Origination and Superimposition in your head and make it work...go for it.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

It seems like there is more and more "subtlety" being invented, to retrofit into what seems like a shocking revelation...it is the same.

 

No Dwai, it's your creation because you're missing the point of the other Buddhist texts. So, all the Buddhist teachings that define this text are lying and this one text is the True text of them all? Your interpretation is based upon a Hindu conditioning. That's why when a Buddhist reads this text, he or she see's something entirely different. The Lakavatara text which is just as Buddhist as this one explains exactly how wrong you are.

 

 

 

I think I know why.

 

He's been reading Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra:

 

"What is equanimity? It is the equality of everything from self to liberation. Why? Because both self and liberation are void. How can both be void? As verbal designations, they both are void, and neither is established in reality. Therefore, one who sees such equality makes no difference between sickness and voidness; his sickness is itself voidness, and that sickness as voidness is itself void."

 

Yes, but that translation of the word shunyata as void can be misleading. Shunyata is directly associated with Pratityasamutpada. So again, it's a different type of non-duality that does not equate with the Upanishadic Atman. It's a non-substantial unity that does not dismiss infinite regress.

 

 

I only have issues with those that claim exclusivity (like our buddies VH and Mikaelz did wrt Buddhism). I have never not-acknowledged the superficial differences. But the fact of the matter is that the differences are only that...superficial.

 

 

The Buddha himself claimed exclusivity. How many times are you going to ignore that? So did Nagarjuna who is considered the second Buddha by pretty much every school of Buddhism except Theravada. They both exclaimed exclusivity. That your comprehension of the path leads to higher rebirth, but not total liberation. Nagarjuna said in fact that your path leads to the edge of Samsara, but not complete extinguishing of the future experiencing of it.

 

We've quoted the Buddha and Nagarjuna as well as many other Buddhas over and over again. So, you see, you have cognitive dissonance.

 

Plus, many of us here are not just book knowledge people.

Some insights arise through spontaneous intuitions (called Prajna). Anyone who seriously meditates gets them. When you couple them with sound logic...they help dispel a lot of "he said she said" confusions and help ascertaining the veracity of claims.

 

One needs vipassana coupled with meditation. Vipassana is very specifically applying dependent origination to the absorption states and everything else.

 

 

 

Can someone tell me where (and what) Siddhartha Buddha is right this very minute?

 

*is curious*

 

He's in the refined heaven realm of peerless siddhas. His Dharmakaya is penetrating everything right now with accessible compassion and wisdom made of the heaps of merit he realized by walking the path. Our own potentiality is realized by him and countless other Buddhas who's awareness is all pervasive and in the constant experience of the non-abiding nature of all phenomena and consciousness.

 

 

right this minute there is no such being as Siddhartha Gautama.

 

depending on which school of Buddhism you like more, Siddhartha was either a man who attained enlightenment (Theravada school) or an already enlightened being who emanated a Nirmanakaya, or physical, body to teach beings Dharma where there was no longer any Dharma (Mahayana and Vajrayana school)

 

As the Parinibbana Sutta say's, he left out of the 4th Jhana, so he's in a peerless siddha and deva realm where they have high wisdom, but a refined form to teach those who have attained mastery of various levels to just finish their sadhana there. He has given some Mahayana Sutras from this realm to beings who have deep meditative abilities and can travel to higher realms of consciousness.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya