The Travels of Vajrahriidaya

[nac]

Emptiness is not incompatible with nonduality.

For once it happened, say the Buddhists, that, the Master having gathered his disciples round him, there shone forth before them suddenly--blasting the sight of all save Vajrapani, the completely-learned--a terrible figure, the figure of Siva, the Great God. Then Vajrapani, his companions being blinded, turned to the Master and said, "Tell me why, searching amongst all the stars and gods, equal in number to the sands of the Ganges, I have nowhere seen this glorious form. Who is he?" And the Buddha said, "He is thyself!" and Vajrapani, it is told, immediately attained the highest.

Source: https://sacred-texts.com/shi/ioe/ioe17.htm

[Vajrahridaya]

Emptiness is not incompatible with nonduality.Source: https://sacred-texts.com/shi/ioe/ioe17.htm

 

Non-duality in Buddhism doesn't mean substantial oneness.

 

It means that all experiences or experiencings are equally empty of inherent existence, thus transparent and translucent.

 

It doesn't mean complete union of all mind streams on a substantial level. To know what this means is hard I think it seems for most. It means that one can indeed look through someone else's eyes. Or that one can influence another's karmic patterns. It doesn't mean that one literally becomes or is absolutely one with that persons stream. But rather that both streams are empty of inherent existence, so the one that has realized this can freely see through any paradigm.

 

One can even say... I am you and you are me, because we are equally empty, but we are not one consciousness, as in Buddhism, even consciousness is empty of inherent existence and dependently originated. But, the awareness of this is a omniscient omnipresence.

[nac]

Sorry for the confusion. The quotation was supposed to show the difference between Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings on nonduality.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry for the confusion. The quotation was supposed to show the difference between Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings on nonduality.

 

 

Ah... ok... yes I was confused.

 

EDIT: Yes, I know nac, took me so long to write this little thing, but I was in all these other conversations at the same time...

Edited August 10, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Ah... ok... yes I was confused.

 

EDIT: Yes, I know nac, took me so long to write this little thing, but I was in all these other conversations at the same time...

Sorry, something like that is hard to capture in a small quote and I'm not feeling very lucid today. I could have chosen a better quote, maybe something stolen directly from a higher nondual tantra like the Manjushri-namasamgiti.

 

PS. If anyone's interested, the Manjushri-namasamgiti is available for download in mp3 format: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/gr...1786920774.html Talk about tantric secrecy... (Remember, this is only the written part. Tantras usually come with secret oral instructions, rituals, etc... I think, I don't belong to any esoteric tradition.)

Edited August 10, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

Emptiness is not incompatible with nonduality.

 

Isn't simultanious emptiness and fullness what nonduality is all about?

 

Be well!

[nac]

Isn't simultanious emptiness and fullness what nonduality is all about?

 

Be well!

Emptiness in what sense? Fullness in what sense? If it's emptiness in the sense of the illusory individual and fullness in the sense of a real, external hierarchy or substratum, then not it Buddhism, no. There's nothing "out there" which you can experience while bypassing what's already "in here". Like Genkaku used to say in E-Sangha, "Wherever you go, there you are! Doh!"

Edited August 10, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

Emptiness in what sense? Fullness in what sense? If it's emptiness in the sense of the illusory individual and fullness in the sense of a real, external hierarchy or substratum, then not it Buddhism, no. There's nothing "out there" which you can experience while bypassing what's already "in here". Like Genkaku used to say in E-Sangha, "Wherever you go, there you are! Doh!"

 

Sorry. I don't speak Buddhism. Hehehe.

 

The Mystery (potential everything) is emptiness. The Manifest (the physical universe) is fullness. These two concepts are not dualistic. The two are of the same source - they are simply different aspects of the All (Tao).

 

Everything matters but nothing matters.

 

It is only (in my opinion) when we are fully immersed in both the Mystery and the Manifest simultaeously that we experience Tao. It is then that we realize that everything matters but that nothing matters.

 

Be well!

[Sunya]

Sorry. I don't speak Buddhism. Hehehe.

 

The Mystery (potential everything) is emptiness. The Manifest (the physical universe) is fullness. These two concepts are not dualistic. The two are of the same source - they are simply different aspects of the All (Tao).

 

Everything matters but nothing matters.

 

It is only (in my opinion) when we are fully immersed in both the Mystery and the Manifest simultaeously that we experience Tao. It is then that we realize that everything matters but that nothing matters.

 

Be well!

 

if you're speaking Buddhism, thats not what emptiness means. Emptiness is the condition or quality of everything. Every mental state, every phenomena, every thing, every no-thing. All empty. you have to take away everything that you think that Emptiness means and throw it away. Emptiness is not the formless, nor is it a realm, nor is it behind phenomena like a background. Nor is it a potentiality nor is it a fullness. The word 'emptiness' or 'voidness' are very lacking in description and immediately the mind attempts to grasp at some vague misunderstanding based on the word. It is the condition of everything, the base, but only as a quality. Like the blueness of sky or the wetness of water. This quality is that nothing stands by itself, independent, and nothing contains any essence or substance. This is what emptiness means.

 

the opposite of Emptiness is not Fullness, al though it is in the English language.. not in the Buddhist language though it can be very confusing. The opposite of Emptiness would be that there is one eternal substance like God that is everything, or the opposite could be that nothing is connected and no truth exists.

[Marblehead]

Hi Mikaelz,

 

So. Now you see why I don't speak Buddhism. Hehehe.

 

A few years ago I got into a discussion of the differences between Nothingness (Emptiness) and Absolute Nothingness. Luckily I have forgotten the essence of the discussion. Hehehe.

 

Hey! I am one of those guys who needs to put his hands on something to fully (or at least partially) understand it.

 

Back in my younger days I took an advanced mathematics course and I was doing really great (I actually aced the mid-term) until the instructor started into calculus and started talking about imaginary numbers. Ha! He sure screwed me up!

 

Be well!

[xabir2005]

Edited August 10, 2009 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Hi Xabir2005,

 

I agree with you. What do you think about that?

 

And what's more, I agree with Toni too.

 

What is the essence of Marble? I can't show it to you. I can't point to it. I don't even know where it is. But I know it exists just as real as the weather exists.

 

I sometimes refer to it as the part of my personal Chi that I call my Life Force. When it is in me there is life; when it departs there will be death.

 

I agree, that there really is no Marbleness without the expression (or the utility as with the car) of Marble. That's the beauty of my understanding of the Mystery (wu) and the Manifest (yo). Without both there would be no Marble.

 

Be well!

[contrivedname!]

At least you know something... Lets not talk about my meditation experiences... eh? You just wouldn't believe them anyway.

You really don't need to fake kindness when all you have is congested feelings to share.

 

Small world is for small minds.

Not wrong, just incomplete. Because due to dependent origination, the level of complexity of this simply empty/full cosmos is ascertained. Excuse me, I'm going to be kind of wrathful with you here, because your so sarcastic all the time... It's a reflection of lack of higher chakra capacity. You need some real third eye opening. Psychic powers are actually lower chakra abilities by the way, third chakra even. Cats are psychic, though quite subjective about their interpretations. Demons are psychic too.

 

Anyway, that lens of the Buddha was huge and wide, variable like a branch that holds strong to it's rooted source, but bends according to the wind. He taught in many different ways for different capacities. He was like no other teacher before him, known to anthropology. He was very clear in way's that were previously unknown. He made no experiential, emotional, nor intellectual excuses for falling short from the liberated view of the real nature of things. He taught nothing less than what any group of people or person needed in order to evolve. He spoke for 40 years. Then he continued to teach from the Peerless Deva realm some of the higher Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings. The clarity of his explanations are unmatched. That's just objectively speaking.

Buddhadharma is the most complicated explanation system with such a clean connection all the way through. Of course if you lack practice and experience through the practice. Your going to miss the point. Humility is a key to actually receiving transmission directly and openly with any fruit. It's Kali Yuga by the way too. As in a majority of the human beings are caught up in material things, psychic powers, false interpretations of spiritual experiences. He's a haven in the Kali Yuga due to his clarity. He didn't fumble around with metaphors unless they were succinct and to the point.

Check out Pratyekabuddha... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha

It's not exclusive in the same way. If you can't see that... put on your reading glasses and pull out your meditation cushion. Read some of my past posts. Clear that sty in your eye... These questions have been answered. It's also quite obvious considering the fruit of the spiritual traditions. Buddhism is quite the disarmament program of religions. It has the largest cannon, as well as the most enlightened beings, both known and not popularly known. Also, the level of change that Hinduism has gone through post Buddha is just staggering. Plus I don't damn other people for doing their religion correctly. I feel that they will evolve their capacity over time to come to understand the Buddha (Awake) teachings.

 

Read the 31 planes of existence. Understand the limitations of the Jhanas, read the different texts by all the different religious teachers of antiquity in open comparison seeing commonality and subtle differences. Get some real deep beyond 5 sense experience that shocks the bajesus out a ya. Even Wikipedia has some good information on it that you can learn a thing or two from.

 

Read my posts with an actual objective mind that defines my words contextually outside of your pre-conception.

 

Not possible without meditative experience at least past the 4th jhana for the most part. When you get into the formless meditations your entering into and illuminating your alaya vijnana. Also, if you've experienced Tandra yet, you've experienced seeing your subconscious files flitter by without order, illuminating and de-knotting your subjectivity ties, then you start getting some objectivity.

No, he said his teaching was a teaching that did not exist pryer and he refuted the Vedas pretty well. Study, study, study.

You haven't yet understood what middleway means. I'll just be blunt. If you did... you would understand that the Buddha taught the flow, not transcendent experiences to be called "ATMAN" and eternal witnesses that are just merely the fruit of absorption methods reified as Self.

As defined in the texts of the path? Yes, it does the first, not the latter. But... that doesn't mean it's a bad path... it still leads to higher rebirth and greater ability to be cognizant non-conceptually. Which is what it takes to understand dependent origination directly.

 

The particular fruit is derived from what seed is planted. View predicates outcome of the practice. It's all about the subtle intuitive interpretation of the methods outcome, not the method itself. View is what it's about in Buddhism, not just sitting, because your just seeing directly your capacity to revolve when you go into your unconscious mind, your not seeing the dharma unless that seed has been planted. You should go through and really read the thread about Buddha's True Self that Dwai started. If your really interested in some answers to these questions that have been answered. Why not? Or are you just smugly Ad-Homing me with sarcasm because I'm so dense and stuck up, while your so down to Earth?

 

 

These questions have been answered thoroughly over the past few months.

 

Anyway... you are a sentient being, and I wish you to know the Truth of the nature of things, just as I do for myself and my girlfriend, my Momma (who's a great yogini), and everyone.

 

Now, if one can conceive of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as being non-static and each one dependent upon the other for existence thereby empty in and of themselves, and Brahman is just the empty realization of this, and not a divine will that starts the mess every cosmic eon. Then maybe you have something there, but Hinduism doesn't really teach like this. In the texts, these beings are considered forms of the one divine will that is the source and end of the multiplicity of existence. Even the hindu Tantra sees the chakra colors and mantras as static based upon a static source of being. Buddhist Tantra does not treat the chakras in the same mannor, because there is no static being. Buddhism also shows how one can manifest enlightenment in different ways through Tantra depending on the path one takes and how one focuses on the chakras with what mantras and colors, as well as intention. Because Buddhism is dependent origination no primal source, while Hinduism is static source religion.

 

Brahman is absolutely real on it's own, without the need for a cosmos according to Hinduism.

 

This does not equate with the Buddha's shunyata.

 

I hope we can have a discussion without sarcasm. I'm not in NYC anymore and a lot has changed because of my surroundings. There is more softness here in Florida in the energy vibrations. It's nicer here.

 

again thanks for the reply. its funny that you can psychoanalyze me so well and you dont even know me . i need third eye opening? what conclusive data do you have either way on that subject?, you read my contrived posts and then when i post seriously you muddle the two. fake kindness? tell me sir, how do you practice true compassion in your life to have such a clear view to see through my fakeness? how do you know i am not reading your posts objectively and then refuting what i feel to be an error? i really truly disagree with the only path to liberation trip.

 

i just have fun on these forums bro, i dont take them too seriously, my sarcasm is intended, i can just as easily post angrily, happy, sad, you name it, because posting is usually contrived, when it isnt, for me at least, they are usually shorter posts.

 

so what do you do in your life to liberate others? what compassionate action do you take? i am not interested in meditation practices or personal practices, those dont liberate anyone but yoself .

 

one last thing: how do you know i havent been being "Wrathful" with you? senge dradrok always did look cool with those flames and stuff

 

 

oh and the questions werent just aimed at you, it was for anyone to contemplate

 

Chris

[Vajrahridaya]

i really truly disagree with the only path to liberation trip.

 

Well, Buddhism does teach something that no other path on earth teaches in it's view. The Buddha said it's the only path to liberation. So, either he was lying, ignorant, or telling the truth. He didn't say that I am the light, the way. But, he said that a particular realization about the nature of reality is the only way. Buddhism seems to be the only path that truly articulates this realization with utter clarity.

 

so what do you do in your life to liberate others? what compassionate action do you take? i am not interested in meditation practices or personal practices, those dont liberate anyone but yoself .

 

No, they influence beings. Being in peace or meditating on the nature of things helps others. I went into debt buying books for people that I had just met online from around the world about 7 years ago for a number of years. I went on a buy books for everyone kick, charging it to my credit cards. I still haven't been able to pay that debt off, thousands of dollars worth in fact. I did years of selfless service, even worked for a deeply wise yogi who had muscular dystrophy for 2 years. I worked on a food line for a number of years that served thousands of people per day in the summer time in the mid 90's. Opportunities for self sacrifice to help others arise all the time. Trying to get the Dharma through to people is considered actually one of the highest services one can do for mankind because the vast majority of people follow erroneous paths.

 

Talking about this will probably just be considered egotistical.

[nac]

MH: Do you know precisely what you mean when you say "I know I exist"? If not, then I agree with you.

[Marblehead]

MH: Do you know precisely what you mean when you say "I know I exist"? If not, then I agree with you.

 

Cheeezzze! Now you want me to get technical. Hehehe.

 

Okay. Let's see how this comes out of my little pea-brain.

 

I know that I am an expression of Tao. Although I really love butterflies I don't think that I am a butterlfy dreaming that I am Marblehead.

 

That 'I am' (even if it is as an expression of Tao) is, in my mind, a given.

 

However, if you ask me to ID this "I" in a very descriptive manner I would be at a loss.

 

So, to your question, no, I cannot precisely define what "I exist" is.

 

But, none-the-less, I think that it is important that I continue to live and experience as much as possible so that Tao can realize its manifestation.

 

Be well!

[nac]

In that case, I agree with you. Your self probably does exist in the conventional sense.

[Marblehead]

In that case, I agree with you. Your self probably does exist in the conventional sense.

 

Gee. Now I have nothing to say. Where's my temptors?

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

In that case, I agree with you. Your self probably does exist in the conventional sense.

 

Well that's basically the two truths, that we conventionally exist but we don't ultimately exist. Or we exist relative to causes and conditions, but none of these causes and conditions have inherent existence as relativity is add infinitum.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Okay.

 

Now that we agree that I kinda' exist I guess I should get on with my life.

 

What to do? Where to go? I guess I will just wait 'til I am inspired. Wu wei me.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Okay.

 

Now that we agree that I kinda' exist I guess I should get on with my life.

 

What to do? Where to go? I guess I will just wait 'til I am inspired. Wu wei me.

 

Be well!

[dwai]

Cheeezzze! Now you want me to get technical. Hehehe.

 

Okay. Let's see how this comes out of my little pea-brain.

 

I know that I am an expression of Tao. Although I really love butterflies I don't think that I am a butterlfy dreaming that I am Marblehead.

 

That 'I am' (even if it is as an expression of Tao) is, in my mind, a given.

 

However, if you ask me to ID this "I" in a very descriptive manner I would be at a loss.

 

So, to your question, no, I cannot precisely define what "I exist" is.

 

But, none-the-less, I think that it is important that I continue to live and experience as much as possible so that Tao can realize its manifestation.

 

Be well!

 

"I am" cannot be described...precisely because it is not a phenomenon. If it were a phenomenon, then it could be described.

 

That is because there is no Objectivity possible when the Subject has to be the object. After you strip away everything that is "Not" "I am", what remains is "I am". So you start with the "I am" and latch on "I am this or that". Then you go from "I am to I am Not" and then finally back to "I am", when you realize that which you though "Is Not" is not what "It Is".

[Vajrahridaya]

"I am" cannot be described...precisely because it is not a phenomenon. If it were a phenomenon, then it could be described.

 

That is because there is no Objectivity possible when the Subject has to be the object. After you strip away everything that is "Not" "I am", what remains is "I am". So you start with the "I am" and latch on "I am this or that". Then you go from "I am to I am Not" and then finally back to "I am", when you realize that which you though "Is Not" is not what "It Is".

 

"I am" arises due to causes and conditions as well and is not a truth that shines from it's own side. Your just taking mind and stripping it of thought, then calling that absolute reality. Which to the Buddha is a mistake that merely leads to long lived formless bliss realms.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Okay guys. I confess. In my younger days when searching for a path I read Descartes before I read the Tao Te Ching.

 

So: I think therefore I am.

 

Now, I shall jump into that picture, grab a bamboo cane pole and do some fishing. I might even drag my tail in the mud.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

So: I think therefore I am.

 

Now, I shall jump into that picture, grab a bamboo cane pole and do some fishing. I might even drag my tail in the mud.

 

Be well!

 

Even when I don't think I am, I still am. Am I still?

 

I looooove muuudddddd. YAY!! Ah yes, New Mexican spring time frolics through running rapids into muddy ponds.