Your enlightenment in this life is assured!

[dwai]

Who experiences?

 

Who's asking?

[3bob]

"the individuated consciousness can expand past things and time" VJ

 

The individual consciousness is an aggregate by Buddhist teachings, thus you can not have your cake and eat it to. Btw, the near constant condescension going on here related to I am is about as good as a used car salesman can slip it to ya.

 

Om

Edited November 23, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

As is the condescension towards Buddhas teachings.

 

Yes, consciousness is an aggregate, that is empty of inherent existence, thus mutable, expandable or contractible.

 

You can in fact have your cake and eat it too, that's why the Buddha said that Samsara is Nirvana. Enlightenment is in fact that. Having your cake and eating it! That's why there's the Samboghakaya.

[Vajrahridaya]

...Alaya...a interconnected stream of experiences...infinite and eternal?

 

Without a self, or Self.

[Vajrahridaya]

Who's asking?

 

A stream of interconnected conditions arising in that moment, empty but full of potential.

[3bob]

As is the condescension towards Buddhas teachings.

 

Yes, consciousness is an aggregate, that is empty of inherent existence, thus mutable, expandable or contractible.

 

You can in fact have your cake and eat it too, that's why the Buddha said that Samsara is Nirvana. Enlightenment is in fact that. Having your cake and eating it! That's why there's the Samboghakaya.

 

Some show appreciation for Buddhism without almost always tagging a but this or but that onto same and then proceed to go on about proclaiming their superiority in understanding above all else!

 

Its amazing how we can fit and use a teaching for ego... Aggregate(s) (or identification or individual consciousness) suffer and do not have the cake and eat it to, period. "Beyond the beyond" is not an aggreate according to Buddhist teachings. Thus freedom is attained according to the Buddha via that pointed to in Udana 8.3.

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

"Beyond the beyond" is not an aggreate according to Buddhist teachings. Thus freedom is attained according to the Buddha via that pointed to in Udana 8.3.

 

Om

 

But you don't know what that means to the Buddha. So, we try to clarify the meaning for you, and you resist the insight because you think it means there is something real that is transcendent of everything even though the Buddha said that the all is merely causes and conditions and insight is merely seeing directly it's emptiness.

 

You don't have the experiential insight of emptiness in order to properly comment on the sutta. All you have is the I AM stage. Which is fine and wonderful! But, Xabir and I are just saying that there is more and subtler.

 

We can, it's also supported by Buddhas teachings, so we do!

 

You not liking it, doesn't make it any less true.

[Marblehead]

p.s. not that I'm enlightened.

 

What a revelation!!!!!

 

Sorry. I just now decided to read this thread. (Not that I am interested in learning Buddhist philosophy or anything like that, you understand.)

 

May you all be liberated!

Edited November 23, 2010 by Marblehead

[C T]

It appears that Udana 8.3 speaks not of 'beyond the beyond' - what it points to is that dualistic views tend to create the notions of this and that, and in turn, this gives rise to further mentations, which give rise to clinging and aversion, and so the circle goes. Once removed from this cycle, through right understanding, notions like the above (beyond/beyond) collapses. When investigating the self that looks for notions, some interesting insights do occur. The Buddha encourages such investigations, as opposed to stating unalterable and fixed philosophies, statements and facts.

 

In the above Sutta, the Buddha also points to the common teaching that says this arises, therefore that arises. If this does not arise, that does not arise. In layman's terms, what i think He means is that if there is seeking, the mind must first create a lack, or feel some kind of unease to necessitate and justify the seeking. If the seeking is dropped, then emancipation itself becomes legless. Why look for emancipation when one have no mental constructs around the dualistic ideas or feelings of inner discontent? He further suggests that when the self is understood right at the beginning to be empty of permanent selfhood, then all the possible effects of this wrong view is cut already at source. Then there will be total absence of any struggle or need to locate a self to go beyond the beyond. No self = no suffering, no discontent, no birth, no death = Real self (with no self-reference). Emancipated from the mental fabrications of suffering at the very root itself. If this is seen, then even Nirvana does not have the power to lead one astray. Otherwise, the Buddha says that after getting some subtle realizations, there may be some who become trapped by such, and could once again return to dualistic grasping and wrong views as a result.

Edited November 23, 2010 by CowTao

[dwai]

Without a self, or Self.

 

 

There are two problems there in.

 

1) How can an infinite number of eternal streams of experiences be non-dual? Non-Dual means One without an other...Only That (Tad Ekam)

2) How does the Non-Self spontaneously arising stream of experiences maintain his identity as Hari (however empty that might be?)

[Vajrahridaya]

There are two problems there in.

 

1) How can an infinite number of eternal streams of experiences be non-dual? Non-Dual means One without an other...Only That (Tad Ekam)

 

This is what non-dual means in Hinduism. In Buddhism, non-dual means, neither one, nor many. All infinite mind streams are interconnected, individual, but also empty of inherent existence. So, we are neither one, nor are we many. Non-dual is an English word that means literally, "not-two". It doesn't necessarily mean that all things are one.

 

2) How does the Non-Self spontaneously arising stream of experiences maintain his identity as Hari (however empty that might be?)

 

Through false clinging to a self the identity is maintained. When one does not cling to a false self anymore, the propulsion of beginningless cycles of false clingings are liberated into an endless stream of liberated from self, self references as an offering to endless sentient beings. This is what the Parinirvana sutra means when it talks about self. It's still not ascribing to an inherent self, or a single ground of being that all beings inherently are, it's just talking about the true purpose is found for a person as a Buddha. This is why the self described in the parinirvana sutra is not the same as what is described in the Upanishads, neither on an experiential level, nor on a level of logic.

 

This is extremely subtle. It can be understood how this is so though and this view does lead to a different experience and different inner interpretation of all being in general, even on a level beyond thought.

 

The purpose of Buddhism is not realizing oneness. It's realizing endless compassion, and blissful enjoyment through this compassion is a side effect.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

This is what non-dual means in Hinduism. In Buddhism, non-dual means, neither one, nor many. All infinite mind streams are interconnected, individual, but also empty of inherent existence. So, we are neither one, nor are we many. Non-dual is an English word that means literally, "not-two". It doesn't necessarily mean that all things are one.

 

 

pishtosh! that's hiding behind words. Non-Dual means one without an other -- no duality...no subject/object, no yin-yang, no black-white, no up-down...get it? That means there it is a singularity...there can't be infinite non-dual things...there can only be one!

 

Through false clinging to a self the identity is maintained. When one does not cling to a false self anymore, the propulsion of beginningless cycles of false clingings are liberated into an endless stream of liberated from self, self references as an offering to endless sentient beings. This is what the Parinirvana sutra means when it talks about self. It's still not ascribing to an inherent self, or a single ground of being that all beings inherently are, it's just talking about the true purpose is found for a person as a Buddha. This is why the self described in the parinirvana sutra is not the same as what is described in the Upanishads, neither on an experiential level, nor on a level of logic.

 

This is extremely subtle. It can be understood how this is so though and this view does lead to a different experience and different inner interpretation of all being in general, even on a level beyond thought.

 

The purpose of Buddhism is not realizing oneness. It's realizing endless compassion, and blissful enjoyment through this compassion is a side effect.

 

The purpose of Buddhism is to break the cycle of rebirth and karma. In the way one also gets to realize oneness. It is realizing endless compassion arising from the realization there really is no OTHER...

[3bob]

It appears that Udana 8.3 speaks not of 'beyond the beyond' - what it points to is that dualistic views tend to create the notions of this and that, and in turn, this gives rise to further mentations, which give rise to clinging and aversion, and so the circle goes. Once removed from this cycle, through right understanding, notions like the above (beyond/beyond) collapses. When investigating the self that looks for notions, some interesting insights do occur. The Buddha encourages such investigations, as opposed to stating unalterable and fixed philosophies, statements and facts.

 

In the above Sutta, the Buddha also points to the common teaching that says this arises, therefore that arises. If this does not arise, that does not arise. In layman's terms, what i think He means is that if there is seeking, the mind must first create a lack, or feel some kind of unease to necessitate and justify the seeking. If the seeking is dropped, then emancipation itself becomes legless. Why look for emancipation when one have no mental constructs around the dualistic ideas or feelings of inner discontent? He further suggests that when the self is understood right at the beginning to be empty of permanent selfhood, then all the possible effects of this wrong view is cut already at source. Then there will be total absence of any struggle or need to locate a self to go beyond the beyond. No self = no suffering, no discontent, no birth, no death = Real self (with no self-reference). Emancipated from the mental fabrications of suffering at the very root itself. If this is seen, then even Nirvana does not have the power to lead one astray. Otherwise, the Buddha says that after getting some subtle realizations, there may be some who become trapped by such, and could once again return to dualistic grasping and wrong views as a result.

 

Hello CowTao, I disagree with your interpretation of "beyond the beyond".

 

Note: from the Dhammapada

 

"26. The True Master

 

Wanting nothing

With all your heart

Stop the stream.

When the world dissolves

Everything becomes clear.

Go beyond

This way or that way,

To the farther shore

Where the world dissolves

And everything becomes clear.

Beyond this shore

And the father shore,

Beyond the beyond,...."

 

Also a quote from the Wanderling site that well describes what I was trying to bring up:

 

"Before he became the Buddha, at the beginning of his spiritual quest, Siddhartha Gautama studied with two teachers. The first teacher taught him the First Seven Jhanas; the other teacher taught him the Eighth Jhana. Both teachers told him they had taught him all there was to learn. But Siddhattha still didn't know why there was suffering, so he left each of these teachers and wound up doing six years of austerity practises. These too did not provide the answer to his question and he abandoned these for what has come to be known as the Middle Way. The suttas indicate that on the night of his Enlightenment, he sat down under the Bodhi Tree and began his meditation by practising the Jhanas. When his mind was "concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability" he direct it to the "true knowledges" that gave rise to his incredible breakthrough in consciousness known in the sutras as Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, the Consummantion of Incomparable Enlightenment, beyond the beyond of the Eighth Jhana." From the Wanderling website

 

Om

[Birch]

"Through false clinging to a self the identity is maintained."

 

I dunno about this part. I think (and I know FWIW) that there is very little that is "false" about self. Although I will also abide with a dynamic sense of self, if only as the wherewithall/apparatus/whatjamacallit to experience life with. And I maintain that the self is ever-open, always growing and embracing and there's nothing wrong with it. Unless there is, in which case it changes itself, through suffering (and internet forums :-p)

[Aaron]

If you really want to make an argument for Buddhism being similar to Taoism, perhaps you should take a Zen approach, just keep in mind that the similarity ends at the religious dogma and other such trappings.

 

Nothing you've stated so far is even remotely Daoist in concept. I think one needs to keep in mind that the idea of enlightenment wasn't an original Taoist concept, rather it's something that evolved over time, because it became an ideal in Chinese culture. Taoists weren't of the idea that one needed to transcend anything, but rather that one needed to become aware of the Tao. We are already a part of the Tao, it is within us and we are within it, there is no need to transcend it or break free from it, rather we need to become aware of what the Tao actually is.

 

When one talks about the Tao, words will always fail, because it is not something that can be explained, rather it can only be experienced. "The Tao that can be talked about is not the eternal-Tao, Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name."

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

pishtosh! that's hiding behind words. Non-Dual means one without an other -- no duality...no subject/object, no yin-yang, no black-white, no up-down...get it? That means there it is a singularity...there can't be infinite non-dual things...there can only be one!

 

 

I used to think that too. But, Vajrayana just doesn't teach that, neither does Mahayana and neither does Theravada. So, you are going to have to open up to a new way of viewing in order to understand what non-dual means in Buddhism. You are having a hard time doing this. I know, it's not easy to do this.

 

The fact remains. In Hinduism, advaita means not two, but one.

 

In Buddhism, Anatman or Anatta means no self, neither one, nor many. This is what non-dual means in translations of Buddhist teachings. Non-dual literally means, not-two in English, and that doesn't mean that there is a definite one though, not for Buddhists.

 

You can think that Buddhism is wrong to you, but this is what Buddhism teaches. The Buddha did not teach the same definition of Nirvana and Samsara as the Upanishads nor Adi Shankaracharya. Non-dual means not one and not many, because we revolve our understanding around dependent origination and emptiness while you resolve everything into a single consciousness and utilize the top down theory of independent origination.

 

The purpose of Buddhism is to break the cycle of rebirth and karma. In the way one also gets to realize oneness. It is realizing endless compassion arising from the realization there really is no OTHER...

 

Actually, Buddhist dialectic is much subtler than resolving everything into a one. In the Prajnaparamita Sutra you can read about how we are trained to understand that neither I nor other beings inherently exist. We are not taught to resolve everything into a one either, but to realize inter-connectivity and emptiness. Emptiness is not at all equal with the concept of Brahman, a self shining reality.

 

In Buddhism, we don't feel that resolving into a singularity will in fact break you from the bondage of unconscious rebirth, because at the end of a cosmic eon, you are swallowed up by this attachment to a singularity. So beings are literally swallowed up by their belief in an ultimate Self during pralaya. The vast majority of beings, or those that do not attain Buddhahood are absorbed by the singularity at the end of a cosmic eon to be recycled and re-expressed in the next without memory of the prier.

 

Our cosmologies are different.

 

So we don't feel that you do break the bonds of karma because you don't see how deeply karmas' vines hold you as a follower of the Brahma vehicle, and you can call it whatever you want, but to Buddhas it's all considered the Brahma vehicle, advaita, vedanta, etc. Any belief system, or interpretation of experience that resolves into independent origination is considered a Brahma vehicle. You can say that it doesn't, but I've studied Advaita and Vedanta of many sorts for many years and they all resolve into a primal ground or single cause for all things, i.e. the cosmic consciousness beyond name and form.

 

We as Buddhists don't see this system of method and focus as ending the bondage of karma but merely leading to higher rebirth either in a long lived deva realm or in a formless deva realm.

 

It's all there in the suttas. There is more detail in the Abhidhamma and even more in the Abhidharma and Abhidharma Kosha.

 

Buddhism just doesn't teach that all things resolve into a singularity. Our non-dual is not the same as your non-dual. This is not hiding behind words, it's just what Buddhism teaches and the experience is different. Your non-duality is substantiated by Brahman the independent, while our non-duality is non-substantiated by emptiness and dependent origination.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello CowTao, I disagree with your interpretation of "beyond the beyond".

 

Note: from the Dhammapada

 

"26. The True Master

 

Wanting nothing

With all your heart

Stop the stream.

When the world dissolves

Everything becomes clear.

Go beyond

This way or that way,

To the farther shore

Where the world dissolves

And everything becomes clear.

Beyond this shore

And the father shore,

Beyond the beyond,...."

 

Also a quote from the Wanderling site that well describes what I was trying to bring up:

 

"Before he became the Buddha, at the beginning of his spiritual quest, Siddhartha Gautama studied with two teachers. The first teacher taught him the First Seven Jhanas; the other teacher taught him the Eighth Jhana. Both teachers told him they had taught him all there was to learn. But Siddhattha still didn't know why there was suffering, so he left each of these teachers and wound up doing six years of austerity practises. These too did not provide the answer to his question and he abandoned these for what has come to be known as the Middle Way. The suttas indicate that on the night of his Enlightenment, he sat down under the Bodhi Tree and began his meditation by practising the Jhanas. When his mind was "concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability" he direct it to the "true knowledges" that gave rise to his incredible breakthrough in consciousness known in the sutras as Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, the Consummantion of Incomparable Enlightenment, beyond the beyond of the Eighth Jhana." From the Wanderling website

 

Om

 

Yes, the Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, as in, go beyond transcendence. The Buddhas teaching transcends absorption paths as taught in the Upanishads, to absorb into absolute infinite consciousness, or nothingness, space, beyond perception and non-perception. The Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, to become completely eminent.

 

There is nothing to transcend.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

"Through false clinging to a self the identity is maintained."

 

I dunno about this part. I think (and I know FWIW) that there is very little that is "false" about self. Although I will also abide with a dynamic sense of self, if only as the wherewithall/apparatus/whatjamacallit to experience life with. And I maintain that the self is ever-open, always growing and embracing and there's nothing wrong with it. Unless there is, in which case it changes itself, through suffering (and internet forums :-p)

 

Buddhism teaches that there really is no "self", and that is the crux of it's difference from other systems of spiritual interpretation and method.

[Aaron]

Yes, the Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, as in, go beyond transcendence. The Buddhas teaching transcends absorption paths as taught in the Upanishads, to absorb into absolute infinite consciousness, or nothingness, space, beyond perception and non-perception. The Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, to become completely eminent.

 

There is nothing to transcend.

 

Hello Vaj,

 

You've obviously ignored my previous comment and that's fine, but what I would ask is "how does this actually relate to Taoism?" It seems to me that you're doing exactly what you claim not to be doing, attempting to convert people to Buddhism. Everything being discussed here is Buddhist in nature and has nothing to do with Taoism. I would love to hear some passages from the Tao Teh Ching or even the Chuang Zhi that might support some of your arguments, because for the life of me I can't think of any.

 

Enlightenment is not Taoist in concept. In fact there is no need to become enlightened according to the Tao Teh Ching, rather there is need to become aware of ones place in the universe and the Tao. Awareness is not the same as the Buddhist idea of enlightenment because it doesn't require you to break any cycle, but rather become aware of the cycle that exists everywhere.

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

You've obviously ignored my previous comment and that's fine, but what I would ask is "how does this actually relate to Taoism?" It seems to me that you're doing exactly what you claim not to be doing, attempting to convert people to Buddhism. Everything being discussed here is Buddhist in nature and has nothing to do with Taoism. I would love to hear some passages from the Tao Teh Ching or even the Chuang Zhi that might support some of your arguments, because for the life of me I can't think of any.

 

Enlightenment is not Taoist in concept. In fact there is no need to become enlightened according to the Tao Teh Ching, rather there is need to become aware of ones place in the universe and the Tao. Awareness is not the same as the Buddhist idea of enlightenment because it doesn't require you to break any cycle, but rather become aware of the cycle that exists everywhere.

 

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

 

I didn't ignore it. I read it thoroughly. It doesn't pertain to our debate though. I'm not trying to make an argument for the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism. I've already concluded that some Taoists have a view of Tao similar to how the Buddhists view the Dharma, and others substantiate the Tao and turn it into a primal self shining cause of everything, endowed with supreme will over everything, which would not at all be in line with the Buddhas Dharma. That's all.

 

Lots of Zen/Chan is influenced by Taoism and lots of Taoism is influenced by Zen/Chan and even merged into one system really. I mostly like my Buddhism Indian or Tibetan for that reason as mostly it's Buddhism that influenced Hinduism and not the other way around. So, in a sense, you are right, Buddhism and Taoism in certain lineages have different goals. From a certain perspective, we do break the cycle, but only by knowing and understanding how it works do we break the cycle of unconscious rebirth. There is never really transcending circles in the ultimate sense, just becoming aware of it's ways so as to never fall into the cycle of ignorance, ever again. A Buddha can take birth anywhere that is needed to help alleviate suffering of other beings, at the same time, they can only do so if the conditions are ripe in that place to originate the occurrence of the birth of a Buddha. So a Buddha remains in a cycle, but in a cycle of awareness and wisdom, rather than a cycle of ignorance and stupor.

 

p.s. According to Buddhism, if I have not mastered awareness of death, if I have not transcended the ignorance around death and if I die without knowledge of my previous existences and knowledge of my future existences, I am considered bound by the cycle of Samsara, or the recycling program of the ignorant.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron,

 

I didn't ignore it. I read it thoroughly. It doesn't pertain to our debate though. I'm not trying to make an argument for the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism. I've already concluded that some Taoists have a view of Tao similar to how the Buddhists view the Dharma, and others substantiate the Tao and turn it into a primal self shining cause of everything, endowed with supreme will over everything, which would not at all be in line with the Buddhas Dharma. That's all.

 

Lots of Zen is influenced by Taoism and lots of Taoism is influenced by Zen and even merged into one system really. I mostly like my Buddhism Indian or Tibetan for that reason as mostly it's Buddhism that influenced Hinduism and not the other way around. So, in a sense, you are right, Buddhism and Taoism in certain lineages have different goals. From a certain perspective, we do break the cycle, but only by knowing and understanding how it works do we break the cycle of unconscious rebirth. There is never really transcending circles in the ultimate sense, just becoming aware of it's ways so as to never fall into the cycle of ignorance, ever again. A Buddha can take birth anywhere that is needed to help alleviate suffering of other beings, at the same time, they can only do so if the conditions are ripe in that place to originate the occurrence of the birth of a Buddha. So a Buddha remains in a cycle, but in a cycle of awareness and wisdom, rather than a cycle of ignorance and stupor.

 

p.s. According to Buddhism, if I have not mastered awareness of death, if I have not transcended the ignorance around death and if I die without knowledge of my previous existences and knowledge of my future existences, I am considered bound by the cycle of Samsara, or the recycling program of the ignorant.

 

 

Hello V,

 

I am not opposed to your ideas, in fact I believe strongly in rebirth, but I tend to feel that our previous life plays little to no part in our rebirth. I also believe that one must first learn something before they can transcend this cycle of rebirth, but I am not convinced that buddhism is the lesson that must be learned.

 

I suppose that is my argument, more than the idea of duality vs non-duality, or transendence, that this is all conjecture to some extent. I'm not entirely certain that anyone has ever reached enlightenment, if only because the people that I've witnessed that claim to be enlightened seem to suffer from the same human frailities they claim to have transcended.

 

This isn't meant as an attack per se, but rather just an observation that I've come upon. The reason I tend to stick to Tao-ishness, is that it seems more in line with the natural order of things.

 

Aaron

Edited November 24, 2010 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

if only because the people that I've witnessed that claim to be enlightened seem to suffer from the same human frailities they claim to have transcended.

 

This is your karma determined by your previous lives. Which is fine and understandable. I do not believe anything until I see it for myself. Thus my beliefs are based upon my direct experiencing through meditation, contemplation, practice of various sorts.

 

I don't have the same karma, as I've met plenty of people who have indeed transcended psychological suffering and have awareness of previous lives and their after life.

 

I in fact know of a number of incredible Buddhist Masters both in the East and West by name who fit the description of beyond psychological suffering.

 

This isn't meant as an attack per se, but rather just an observation that I've come upon. The reason I tend to stick to Tao-ishness, is that it seems more in line with the natural order of things.

 

Aaron

 

That's totally fair and understandable. I do not feel that you are making an attack.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Immortal4life]

Enlightenment is never assured

[3bob]

Yes, the Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, as in, go beyond transcendence. The Buddhas teaching transcends absorption paths as taught in the Upanishads, to absorb into absolute infinite consciousness, or nothingness, space, beyond perception and non-perception. The Buddha taught to go beyond the beyond, to become completely eminent.

 

There is nothing to transcend.

 

VJ that sounds like a major and misleading generalization concerning the upanishads which you seem compelled to do:

 

"...The first point to be noted is that the word Samadhi does not occur in the ten major Upanishads upon which Sankara has commented. This is not a matter to be lightly passed over, for if the attainment of Samadhi is central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the term to appear in the major Upanishads which are the very source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur. The closest approximation to the word Samadhi in the early Upanisads is the past passive participle samahita in the Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka Upanishads. In both texts the word samahita is not used in the technical meaning of Samadhi ,that is, in the sense of a meditative absorption or enstasis ,although the closest approximation to this sense occurs in the Brhadaranyaka. In the first reference (BU 4.2.1) , Yajnavalkya tells Janaka: "You have fully equipped your mind (samahitatma) with so many secret names [of Brahman, that is, Upanishads]." Here the word samahita should be translated as "concentrated, collected, brought together, or composed."

 

In the second occurrence (BU 4.4.23), Yajnavalkya tells Janaka that a knower of Brahman becomes "calm (santa), controlled (danta), withdrawn from sense pleasures (uparati), forbearing (titiksu), and collected in mind (samahita). This reference to samahita is the closest approximation in the Upanishads to the term Samadhi, which is well known in the later yoga literature. However, the two terms are not synonyms, for in the Upanishad the word samahita means "collectedness of mind," and there is no reference to a meditation practice leading to the suspension of the faculties such as we find in the literature dealing with yoga..."

 

All of this stuff at best is vehicles, including Buddhism.

 

Om

Edited November 24, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Enlightenment is never assured

It is with "right view" the first of the 8 fold noble path.