A question for Vaj the Buddhist

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

As something of a summary up to this point, I have to say, at least for me, this post really managed to explain something very complicated in a simple way, so, thanks a lot Kate.

 

Ok, I'll take a stab;-)

 

Enlightenment is knowing experientially a few things at the same time:

 

- how one aspect of what you (initially) consider to be yourself (the ego/identity construct)came about

 

- knowing that it isn't all of you at the same time.

 

- it's recognition of how consciousness (or awareness, I never get the correct one) constructs itself into an "entity" in relationship (and opposition to other entities)

 

- how that entity self-perpetuates (unless you hack into it via various methods) and can cause needless suffering (if for example I see myself as a success in some field and then I fail (which happens on the road to success) the degree to which I experience suffering will largely depend on the degree to which I identified with the "success". The term "attachment" is often used for this, but I prefer "identify".

 

- how to navigate within consciousness with more and more intentionality and less and less recourse to conditioning, this is where the qi-gong, kundalini, yogic, tai-chi, meditation, other energetic practices start being very useful. They help to recondition the entity. Because there is no mind/body/soul/spirit-soul split. None.

 

Vaj, you answered my question faithfully and in a way that was easy for me to understand so thank you.

 

Everyone put in some nice input that really helped me understand this a little bit more, so thanks to all.

 

I still have trouble reconciling certain Buddhist views, as in reference to Ralis' first post on page one. I think that was an important point before it descended into a bit of an argument.

 

I have no idea how to judge if the Buddhist aim is more worthy than another form of enlightenment. In my view I could only judge this by actually having reached those certain stages, in two or more systems, and then being able to compare them. I'm not sure it would, necessarily, even be possible, as the Buddhist view seems to say it supercedes all the other views, but that just takes me back to Ralis' first point. I'm not saying the Buddhist view is wrong mind you, as I can't, because I don't know.

 

Vaj mentioned the 'eon crunch', and how if you hadn't achieved the Buddhist enlightenment then all the energy of individuals(souls?)would simply be recycled. But as a question to all, had I become enlightened(or at least reaching the necessary stage to avoid the eon crunch)what would I then become?

 

I'm kind of expecting I may get the answer 'A Buddha', but what exactly is that? And how to define that(if possible). Is the Buddhist view that progress is only achievable in a physical state? Can I not progress without a body? And if so, why not? Direct meditative experiences would be a welcome addition to this discussion.

 

 

Thanks again to all who posted so far.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vaj, you answered my question faithfully and in a way that was easy for me to understand so thank you.

 

You asked and I explored an expression in response and I'm glad it rang a bell or two. It's nice to know when time is not wasted. :lol:

 

Everyone put in some nice input that really helped me understand this a little bit more, so thanks to all.

 

Yes... I do agree.

I still have trouble reconciling certain Buddhist views, as in reference to Ralis' first post on page one. I think that was an important point before it descended into a bit of an argument.

 

Ralis has this idea that understanding and wisdom are somehow different.

 

I have no idea how to judge if the Buddhist aim is more worthy than another form of enlightenment. In my view I could only judge this by actually having reached those certain stages, in two or more systems, and then being able to compare them. I'm not sure it would, necessarily, even be possible, as the Buddhist view seems to say it supercedes all the other views, but that just takes me back to Ralis' first point. I'm not saying the Buddhist view is wrong mind you, as I can't, because I don't know.

 

Yes, this is why I took birth into a substantialist non-dual view and dove into it before I came to Buddhadharma. The path I practiced basically summarized all other paths outside of Buddhadharma, as most paths are monistic in some way or another. Anyway... this allowed me a sense of deep comparison when I intuited the goal as explained through text and transmission in "oneness" theory as incomplete and I moved on to Buddhism for clarity.

 

Vaj mentioned the 'eon crunch', and how if you hadn't achieved the Buddhist enlightenment then all the energy of individuals(souls?)would simply be recycled. But as a question to all, had I become enlightened(or at least reaching the necessary stage to avoid the eon crunch)what would I then become?

 

There are other universes at work that you will be open to as you will have transcended there being one universe, so you will just be a Buddha somewhere else.

 

I'm kind of expecting I may get the answer 'A Buddha', but what exactly is that? And how to define that(if possible). Is the Buddhist view that progress is only achievable in a physical state? Can I not progress without a body? And if so, why not? Direct meditative experiences would be a welcome addition to this discussion.

 

Not necesarily a physical body as you can progress in fine material body too in higher realms. Read... 31 planes of existence. I mean.. really read it and try to understand it.

 

All the best!

[ralis]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ralis has this idea that understanding and wisdom are somehow different.

 

 

 

 

Where did I say that? Please quote.

 

ralis

Edited June 27, 2010 by ralis

[gendao]

All phenomena are interdependent, not just concepts, but also the mind and all the different minds are all interdependent and without inherent essence.

 

What you said about Taoism depends on the type of Taoism as some Taoism thinks of the Tao as a static and unchanging source behind all phenomena. Buddha would criticize this view as Samsaric. Even the Dharmakaya or Tathagatagarbha in Buddhism does not have inherent existence and is basically the experience of insight into inter-dependent origination, so is not an independent source of things. These are describing the insight of emptiness not an inherent essence.

 

No, emptiness is not a substratum. It's the quality of all phenomena, so emptiness does not inherently exist either since it's the quality of phenomena that don't inherently exist. This leads to a subtler clarity than the belief in ones experience is a substratum. This also leads to an entirely different way of seeing how the universe works and cycles and what is necessary for constant liberation beyond the unconscious cycling of the masses. As in, one wouldn't take refuge in an experience of formless bliss in meditation calling this the universal Self of all beyond subject and object. One would understand that this is just a state of altered consciousness and not a substratum.

 

Even Zero is empty of inherent existence. Emptiness doesn't mean zero. It doesn't mean nothingness. It means malleable, and non-inherency.

 

Though one can have the meditative experience of zero and this experience arises dependently as well. The realization and luminosity of realization goes deeper than this experience of zero point energy, which arises dependent upon the fact that all things are empty, and that the awareness of mind can focus. Awareness can focus or waver because awareness is not static and unchanging either and arises dependently.

 

It's tough to think about this through concepts as one should have a direct intuitive experience and one can have this without closing ones eyes. As one experiences more deeply the insight of inter-dependent origination/emptiness, the easier it is to understand the logic of it.

Anyone read this Taoist classic? Talks a lot about "nothingness," including no "nothingness," etc.

Qing Jing Jing (清 静 经) / Book of Purity

- Translated by Xiang Fu . -

 

Chapter 1.

老君曰

(Lao Jun says)

大道無形生育天地。

The Tao has no form; it created heaven and earth.

大道無情運行日月。

The Tao has no emotions; it maintains the course of the sun and the moon.

大道無名長養萬物。

The Tao has no name; it raises and nourishes all beings.

吾不知其名強名曰道。

I do not know its name, thus, I call it Tao.

夫道者

The Tao:

有清有濁有動有靜。

Have the purity and the turbulence, has the movement and the stillness.

天清地濁天動地靜。

Heaven is pure and the Earth is turbulent, Heaven is movement and the Earth is stillness.

男清女濁男動女靜。

The male is movements, the female is stillness.

降本流末而生萬物。

The Tao circulates from beginning to end, Thus it transforms to all the ten thousand beings of the Universe.

清者濁之源靜者動之基。

Purity is the origin of turbulent; Movement is the foundation of the stillness.

人能常清靜天地悉皆歸。

Always be pure and still; Heaven and earth return to the primordial.

 

Chapter 2.

夫人神好清而情撓之。

The human spirit is associated with purity, but the mind disturbs it.

人心好靜而慾牽之。

The human mind is associated with tranquility, But emotions disturbs it.

常能遣其慾而心自靜。

Overcome emotions for good, and the mind will be calm.

澄其心而神自清。

Clear your mind, then the spirit will return to purity.

自然六慾不生三毒消滅。

Naturally the six emotions won't arise, the three poisons are eliminated.

所以不能者為心未澄者 慾未遣也。

Whoever cannot do this, he/she has not yet cleared his/her mind, and their emotions are not yet controlled.

能遣之者

Those who have surpass their emotions:

內觀於心心無其心

Observe your mind by contemplation, until there is no mind.

外觀於形形無其形

Then observe the body by contemplation, until there is no body.

遠觀於物物無其物。

Then observe others by glancing far away towards all things and beings, until there is no beings or anything.

三者既悟唯見於空。

When you contemplate on these three parts, it is observing the Nothingness.

 

Chapter 3.

觀空以空空無所空。

Use emptiness to observe nothingness, and see there is no nothingness.

所空既無無無亦無。

The blankness of blank is already nothing; the nothingness of nothing is also nothing.

無無既無湛然常寂。

The nothingness of nothing already is nothing, when no desires arise then you have found true stillness.

寂無所寂慾豈能生。

In true stillness, go along with beings;

慾既不生即是真靜。

In true permanence, realize inner nature.

真靜應物真常得性。

Forever going along, forever stillness-

常應常靜常清靜矣。

This is everlasting purity, lasting stillness.

 

Chapter 4.

如此清靜漸入真道。

In Purity and stillness, gradually enter the true Tao.

既入真道名為得道。

When the true Tao is entered, the realized-consciousness will appear.

雖名得道實無所得。

Though we think of "realized, although there is nothing to attain.

為化眾生名為得道。

Rather, we speak of realization, when someone begins to transform the mortal beings.

能悟之者可傳聖道。

Only who has properly understood this, is worthy to transmit the sages' Tao.

 

Chapter 5.

老君曰

Lao Jun Says:

上士無爭下士好爭。

Noble man stay away from conflict, the inferior person always disputes.

上德不德下德執德。

Noble man does not need virtue, the inferior person needs virtue.

執著之者不名道德。

People fail to realize the Tao, because the mind is always moved by many improper emotions.

眾生所以不得真道者 為見妄心。

Emotions overcome the mind, means the spirit is disturbed.

既見妄心即矜其身。

When spirit is disturbed, then one adheres to the improper things.

既矜其身即著萬物。

When adheres to the improper things, Then desires and pretension takes place.

既著萬物即生貪求。

As desires and pretension takes place, then annoyance and anguish are richened.

既生貪求即是煩惱。

Improper desires, annoyance and anguish,

煩惱妄想憂苦身心。

Always pressure and bother the body and the mind.

 

Chapter 6.

便遭濁辱流浪生死。

Then falls into disturbance and suffering, one wanders in Life and Death Reincarnation cycle).

常沉苦海永失真道。

Forever immersed in the sea of misery, one is in eternity lost to the true Tao.

真常之道悟者自得。

The true and real Tao can be achieved naturally when one have real consciousness.

得悟道者常清靜矣。

Those who understand the realization of the Tao, Will rest forever in the pure and stillness.

Edited June 28, 2010 by vortex

[voidisyinyang]

[Sunya]

Why not offer some balance and post a bad review as well?

 

This horrid title is the kitchen sink of name-calling... a rabidly virulent anti-Dalai Lama book. It is an expansion of the Western Shugden Society's previous volume, "The Tibetan Situation Today" as if that wasn't already sickening enough. Like its predecessor, it is packed with polytheistic deity worshipping nonsense and has nothing to do with real Tibetan situation or authentic Dharma. In fact, this sort of unrelenting jealous rage and hatred gives real genuine Buddhism a black eye.

 

According to the authors of this monstrous lunacy, the Dalai Lama is a Fascist, an evil Capitalist, and a Communist (all of which are mutually-exclusive)! One of the many deranged distortions claimed here is the Dalai Lama has ties to Nazis. The so-called Nazis "are" one Heinrich Harrer of "Seven Years in Tibet" fame (talk about a stretch!). Many more conspiracy theories abound within, to include having "shady ties" to the C.I.A. The authors even claim the Dalai Lama is pro-Communist Chinese!!! If anyone is caught with an image of the Dalai Lama in Communist China, they are subject to arrest and long-term imprisonment. Meanwhile, the Western Shugden Society operates openly in that country. You do the math.

 

Additionally, these angry authors throw countless unsubstantiated slurs at his His Holiness to include labeling him "the devil" and "a murderer" ...and they really mean it!

 

In summary, this book is insanely paranoid and evil with regards to its intent. If it weren't so divisive, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, the Western Shugden Society has many supporters as is evidenced by the nearly verbatim regurgitation of the book's main talking points within the positive reviews; almost cult-like in their fervor. Unbelievable expose? Well yes, unbelievable is an applicable word. Apparently, many people need hate and a "common enemy" within their lives and disguise it as "religious freedom" to relieve the guilt of such a practice. In that regard, this book does not differ much from the tactics employed by other extremist groups.

 

THIS IS THE WORST BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

[voidisyinyang]

Why not offer some balance and post a bad review as well?

 

This horrid title is the kitchen sink of name-calling... a rabidly virulent anti-Dalai Lama book. It is an expansion of the Western Shugden Society's previous volume, "The Tibetan Situation Today" as if that wasn't already sickening enough. Like its predecessor, it is packed with polytheistic deity worshipping nonsense and has nothing to do with real Tibetan situation or authentic Dharma. In fact, this sort of unrelenting jealous rage and hatred gives real genuine Buddhism a black eye.

 

According to the authors of this monstrous lunacy, the Dalai Lama is a Fascist, an evil Capitalist, and a Communist (all of which are mutually-exclusive)! One of the many deranged distortions claimed here is the Dalai Lama has ties to Nazis. The so-called Nazis "are" one Heinrich Harrer of "Seven Years in Tibet" fame (talk about a stretch!). Many more conspiracy theories abound within, to include having "shady ties" to the C.I.A. The authors even claim the Dalai Lama is pro-Communist Chinese!!! If anyone is caught with an image of the Dalai Lama in Communist China, they are subject to arrest and long-term imprisonment. Meanwhile, the Western Shugden Society operates openly in that country. You do the math.

 

Additionally, these angry authors throw countless unsubstantiated slurs at his His Holiness to include labeling him "the devil" and "a murderer" ...and they really mean it!

 

In summary, this book is insanely paranoid and evil with regards to its intent. If it weren't so divisive, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, the Western Shugden Society has many supporters as is evidenced by the nearly verbatim regurgitation of the book's main talking points within the positive reviews; almost cult-like in their fervor. Unbelievable expose? Well yes, unbelievable is an applicable word. Apparently, many people need hate and a "common enemy" within their lives and disguise it as "religious freedom" to relieve the guilt of such a practice. In that regard, this book does not differ much from the tactics employed by other extremist groups.

 

THIS IS THE WORST BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

 

Yeah it is a "bad" review.

 

 

The Dalai Lama has more contacts with Nazis than just his Nazi tutor....

 

As for the CIA -- they were in Tibet BEFORE the Maoists....

 

And the CIA did train the Tibetans in Colorado --

 

And it is true that Communism, Capitalism and Fascism are NOT mutually exclusive!

 

So anyway just having some fun -- I see no point in putting Buddhism on a pedestal.

 

A great book on Tibetan Buddhism is

 

"My Journey to Lhassa" by Alexandra David-Neel

 

# My Journey to Lhassa. (1983)

 

Virago Press Ltd,

41 William IV Street - London WC2 N4 DB

New Introduction : Peter Hopkirk

 

So she states that AFTER the British took over Lhassa then the taxes were raised on the peasants of Tibet. So the peasants of Tibet actually wanted the Chinese to take over rather than to have Lhassa in control. The reason the taxes were raised is so that Lhassa could increase military spending as per the British influence.

Edited June 28, 2010 by drewhempel

[Sunya]

Yeah it is a "bad" review.

 

 

The Dalai Lama has more contacts with Nazis than just his Nazi tutor....

 

So he was a welcoming leader and was very nice to the Nazis that visited.. he even wrote a letter to Hitler. That means what? That means that the Dalai Lama supported the Holocaust? That is what the book and you are implying isn't it? When you say he supported the Nazis, you're saying he supported everything that they stand for. And your evidence is that he welcomed Nazis and was a hospitable host.

 

As for the CIA -- they were in Tibet BEFORE the Maoists...

 

And the CIA did train the Tibetans in Colorado --

 

Yeah, they really helped.

 

So anyway just having some fun -- I see no point in putting Buddhism on a pedestal.

 

What does this have to do with Buddhism? This is biased politics.

 

Man I gotta wonder, you pretend to be smart but you really just seem incredibly naive. Do you believe everything you read?

Edited June 28, 2010 by mikaelz

[RongzomFan]

Careful, mikaelz. I once posted that I have an undergraduate degree from a top philosophy program at a major university, and Vaj taunted me about it, saying that it mattered nothing to him.

 

 

 

Don't worry about it,

 

Vaj is an arrogant POS who thinks he used to be Brahma LOL

 

He is arrogant to everyone, if you look at his old posts.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

Anyone read this Buddhist classic?

 

A Great Deception: The Ruling Lamas' Policies

 

 

Wow! What delusion...

[goldisheavy]

mikaelz,

 

Are you as attached to your sacred cows as you appear just now? Or is it just a momentary lapse of mindfulness?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Anyone read this Taoist classic? Talks a lot about "nothingness," including no "nothingness," etc.

What's the name of the classic called?

 

And I think the 'nothingness' in the context can be translated as 'emptiness' also.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

mikaelz,

 

Are you as attached to your sacred cows as you appear just now? Or is it just a momentary lapse of mindfulness?

 

I have a sacred cow? I think its ok to criticize people but to always do so justly. That book is just biased nonsense, probably paid for by the CPC.

[ralis]

Yes ralis, there is a hierarchy. There is the more intelligent and than the less so.

 

Just like there is the more aware and there is the less so. May the more aware always teach the less aware how to be more aware.

 

May the fearless teach those filled with fear how to be free from fear always! May those with no doubt teach how one can be free from self doubt.

 

You are the master of sweeping generalizations. Please understand by doing some research and you will find there are different types of intelligence. What you are referring to is the age old mental I.Q. debate, where one was statistically classified in a hierarchy according to a test.

 

It is well documented now that other types of intelligence: Emotional, kinesthetic, visual and auditory. Your hierarchical view is a moot point.

 

You also imply a static intelligence (hierarchy) by your first statement. Recent research has proven the neuroplasticity of the brain.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Anyone read this Taoist classic? Talks a lot about "nothingness," including no "nothingness," etc.

 

This text still attributes that Tao as a first cause so as a supreme substance beyond concepts. So, it's still just applying the neti-neti principle of not this and not that in a conceptual fashion, making the Tao still true and real, shinning from it's own side without cause. So, it's still not Buddhadharma.

[Vajrahridaya]

You are the master of sweeping generalizations. Please understand by doing some research and you will find there are different types of intelligence. What you are referring to is the age old mental I.Q. debate, where one was statistically classified in a hierarchy according to a test.

 

It is well documented now that other types of intelligence: Emotional, kinesthetic, visual and auditory. Your hierarchical view is a moot point.

 

You also imply a static intelligence (hierarchy) by your first statement. Recent research has proven the neuroplasticity of the brain.

 

 

ralis

 

A Sammasambuddha is defined as such due to having awareness of all the intelligences. Hearing and subtle hearing, feeling and subtle feeling... etc. I am aware of these studies and findings you've posted above.

 

You make static generalizations of me that do not inherently exist outside of your limited perceptions of my words. :lol: :lol:

[ralis]

A Sammasambuddha is defined as such due to having awareness of all the intelligences. Hearing and subtle hearing, feeling and subtle feeling... etc. I am aware of these studies and findings you've posted above.

 

You make static generalizations of me that do not inherently exist outside of your limited perceptions of my words. :lol: :lol:

 

You were talking about intelligence in the general sense, not with some Buddha in the equation.

 

ralis

[goldisheavy]

This text still attributes that Tao as a first cause so as a supreme substance beyond concepts. So, it's still just applying the neti-neti principle of not this and not that in a conceptual fashion, making the Tao still true and real, shinning from it's own side without cause. So, it's still not Buddhadharma.

 

That's not how I understand it. I think that's what you chose to read into it using your own prejudice.

 

A basic requirement for substance is identifiability. And yet in the very first verse of Tao Te Ching you hear "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao."

 

Another problem with what you say is that you say that Tao is a cause, as if it were not an effect. Tao is both a cause and effect and beyond both, because Tao is everything. Since it is everything it cannot be just half, like a cause. A cause is always a half. A cause is always incomplete and senseless without an effect. In fact, there is really no cause and no effect, just a mental illusory delineation between them.

Edited June 28, 2010 by goldisheavy

[voidisyinyang]

So he was a welcoming leader and was very nice to the Nazis that visited.. he even wrote a letter to Hitler. That means what? That means that the Dalai Lama supported the Holocaust? That is what the book and you are implying isn't it? When you say he supported the Nazis, you're saying he supported everything that they stand for. And your evidence is that he welcomed Nazis and was a hospitable host.

 

 

 

Yeah, they really helped.

 

 

 

What does this have to do with Buddhism? This is biased politics.

 

Man I gotta wonder, you pretend to be smart but you really just seem incredibly naive. Do you believe everything you read?

 

Listen it's easy to pick and choose excerpts of my comment and then ignore others and then suggest what I'm implying and then say I'm naive, etc. haha. I have a masters degree from ten years ago and I've read one book a day since then. So obviously if I believed everything I read then I would have to take into account many mutually exclusive viewpoints -- well on one hand I do!! haha. On the other hand it's fairly easy to tell if someone has a limited understanding from lack of research, etc.

 

So your comment on Alexandra David-Neel's book "My Journey to Lhasa"? That was 1927.

 

So Tibet was part of the "great game" -- (China, Russia, Britain) fighting over Central and Western Asia.

 

Buddhism though spread as part of imperialism -- starting with the Asoka Empire.

 

It's important to put Buddhism in the larger historical context -- so in current day Thailand and Burma, for example, Buddhism is STILL considered to be the "front-lines" of imperialism. The Buddhist monks are supposed to convert the indigenous tribes on the periphery.

 

Meanwhile some tribes like the Karen converted to Christianity and or to Islam and so you get the various monotheistic imperial religions fighting over each other -- or between Hinduism and Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

 

Religion is politics -- even Taoism and Buddhism have a long history of conflict since Buddhism was tax-funded by the Chinese empire whereas traditionally Taoism was not.

Edited June 28, 2010 by drewhempel

[goldisheavy]

Religion is politics -- even Taoism and Buddhism have a long history of conflict since Buddhism was tax-funded by the Chinese empire whereas traditionally Taoism was not.

 

Good points Drew. Thanks for making them. I wish more "Buddhists" opened their eyes and saw the truth instead of only seeing what they want to see. It's stupid to be an -ist. It really is. If you esteem wisdom, why do you have to carry a card of some organization? Any -ism, even a subtle one, is just sectarianism under another name.

 

You can still distinguish more effective from less effective teachings without belonging to any group.

[Vajrahridaya]

That's not how I understand it. I think that's what you chose to read into it using your own prejudice.

 

A basic requirement for substance is identifiability. And yet in the very first verse of Tao Te Ching you hear "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao."

 

I don't really care how non-conceptual one makes it, it's still attributed to being the reality behind the reality the creator of all things, the source of all things, the one behind the many. This type of subtle identity does not lead to liberation from Samsara.

Another problem with what you say is that you say that Tao is a cause, as if it were not an effect. Tao is both a cause and effect and beyond both, because Tao is everything. Since it is everything it cannot be just half, like a cause. A cause is always a half. A cause is always incomplete and senseless without an effect. In fact, there is really no cause and no effect, just a mental illusory delineation between them.

 

It's still a paradigm of oneness. This will not do. This merely leads to re-absorption.

[goldisheavy]

I don't really care how non-conceptual one makes it, it's still attributed to being the reality behind the reality the creator of all things, the source of all things, the one behind the many. This type of subtle identity does not lead to liberation from Samsara.

 

 

It's still a paradigm of oneness. This will not do. This merely leads to re-absorption.

 

It isn't a paradigm of oneness. That's just your interpretation of it. Would Buddha nature be a paradigm of oneness? The fact that all Buddhas abide in the exact same Nirvana, is that a paradigm of oneness?

 

How about this:

 

There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned.

 

Or this:

 

There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress.

 

I could go on. But why bother. I also don't care about your answer. I already know in advance what your idiotic answer is going to be -- just more blind sectarianism.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Buddhism though spread as part of imperialism -- starting with the Asoka Empire.

 

It's important to put Buddhism in the larger historical context -- so in current day Thailand and Burma, for example, Buddhism is STILL considered to be the "front-lines" of imperialism. The Buddhist monks are supposed to convert the indigenous tribes on the periphery.

 

Meanwhile some tribes like the Karen converted to Christianity and or to Islam and so you get the various monotheistic imperial religions fighting over each other -- or between Hinduism and Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

 

Religion is politics -- even Taoism and Buddhism have a long history of conflict since Buddhism was tax-funded by the Chinese empire whereas traditionally Taoism was not.

 

This is just people. None of this is really what the Buddha taught. He did teach a religion, or a system of analysis and methods for unraveling ones nature. All this other stuff is just what regular people use as an excuse for taking things over. People use politics, religion and all sorts of things as an excuse. That is not the fault of the many Buddhas and real Buddhists in the world.

[Vajrahridaya]

It isn't a paradigm of oneness. That's just your interpretation of it. Would Buddha nature be a paradigm of oneness? The fact that all Buddhas abide in the exact same Nirvana, is that a paradigm of oneness?

 

The Taoist texts identify everything as one... the Tao. You just said so. Everything is the Tao.

 

Buddhanature is just emptiness, as all sentient beings are inherently empty, there is mutability, or malleability, thus this is Buddhanature, the ability to transform, or instantly realize. This is not a paradigm of oneness. Though there is a unity of realization between all Buddhas. The subtle differences are very important, and it's more than merely conceptual.

 

You quote is merely talking about the realization of emptiness, making all the born, fabricated and what not, unraveled. or not ultimate. Since everything is always not ultimate, then this realization is permanent, but Nirvana is not a source of everything.

 

I could go on. But why bother. I also don't care about your answer. I already know in advance what your idiotic answer is going to be -- just more blind sectarianism.

 

You don't really have training or pointing out instructions from realized teachers, because you don't like teachers. You lack humility. So you think these statements mean something other than they do. The next quote is also just talking about the dimension of realizing the empty nature of things, not a cosmic source of everything.

[Vajrahridaya]

Good points Drew. Thanks for making them. I wish more "Buddhists" opened their eyes and saw the truth instead of only seeing what they want to see. It's stupid to be an -ist. It really is. If you esteem wisdom, why do you have to carry a card of some organization? Any -ism, even a subtle one, is just sectarianism under another name.

 

You can still distinguish more effective from less effective teachings without belonging to any group.

 

The Buddha didn't teach the triple gem for no reason. It is a club, the club of the liberated, and not the club of the bound. So yes, one does take up membership.

 

There are those humans of course that use religion as an excuse for all sorts of things in the political sense. This is just human conditioning.