Your enlightenment in this life is assured!

[Vajrahridaya]

If you at least have that taste of the experiential meaning of dependent origination/emptiness... that is a mass of a lot to go on!! Just practice integrating that with your so called judged failures and wins! In each moment... just equalize.

[Jetsun]

If you at least have that taste of the experiential meaning of dependent origination/emptiness... that is a mass of a lot to go on!! Just practice integrating that with your so called judged failures and wins! In each moment... just equalize.

 

Yeah I have some mental understanding of dependent origination/ emptiness bascially from reading books on the subject but unfortunately I have no real practical experience of it and I do wonder if this is possible or likely without long retreats of many months or years?. Some people say this is the way of the monk and sometimes I wonder if you really do need to become a monk for a long period of time for your practice to blossom, do you think can a part time practitioner of only an hour or so a day while living a normal life can get there with this path?

[ralis]

Yeah I have some mental understanding of dependent origination/ emptiness bascially from reading books on the subject but unfortunately I have no real practical experience of it and I do wonder if this is possible or likely without long retreats of many months or years?. Some people say this is the way of the monk and sometimes I wonder if you really do need to become a monk for a long period of time for your practice to blossom, do you think can a part time practitioner of only an hour or so a day while living a normal life can get there with this path?

 

Dependent origination is nothing more than cause and effect. Physics 101. The Buddhist shills have co opted this term, changed it to some metaphysical concept to make it appear that the Buddha discovered it. He didn't.

[Jetsun]

Dependent origination is nothing more than cause and effect. Physics 101. The Buddhist shills have co opted this term, changed it to some metaphysical concept to make it appear that the Buddha discovered it. He didn't.

 

Did someone else apply this law to the sense of self before Gotama Buddha? I don't suppose it matters really, all that matters is whether it's true or not

[ralis]

Did someone else apply this law to the sense of self before Gotama Buddha? I don't suppose it matters really, all that matters is whether it's true or not

 

The discussion of cause and effect most likely started with the Greeks. Perhaps before? Further, Buddhism is a reactionary philosophy against certain belief systems of the time. For anyone to claim absolute knowledge of the workings of the cosmos or even claim that everything written about the Buddha is 100% correct, is making a misrepresentation!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

[rex]

Yeah I have some mental understanding of dependent origination/ emptiness bascially from reading books on the subject but unfortunately I have no real practical experience of it and I do wonder if this is possible or likely without long retreats of many months or years?. Some people say this is the way of the monk and sometimes I wonder if you really do need to become a monk for a long period of time for your practice to blossom, do you think can a part time practitioner of only an hour or so a day while living a normal life can get there with this path?

Don't worry about it. Everyone experiences and lives dependent origination/emptiness/fullness all the time - we are dependent origination/emptiness/fullness. There are practices and approaches to experience this while earning a crust in this vale of tears - have you considered Dzogchen?

 

eidetd for tpyos

Edited November 26, 2010 by rex

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Birch]

"Yes, but have you actually understood them from the point of view of the Buddha who gave them?"

 

I've contemplated a lot from what I've read about his life, upbringing, years of practices and my own practices. It's experimental, it's study, it's...what it is.

 

To ask a person to 100% understand something from the point of view of anyone apart from himself (especially a long dead guy I can't talk with, how convenient) is IMO knowingly cheating with your rhetoric, unkowingingly cheating with it, misunderstanding, or you could be enlightened and just playing

 

But if you are the latter, I doubt you'd be banging on quite as much as you do about buddhism It's just a vehicle, another one. And before you tell me you have the best one, don't.

 

"are you conditioned by 2,500 years of mix and match, blend and then new age all paths lead to Rome dogmatism?

 

No

[3bob]

3Bob, What VJ is saying is valid.

 

I myself researched into all the various religions of the world (Esoteric Christianity, Sufism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.) I used to think that all religions led to the same realization or ultimate goal of merging with some omnipresent "source" or "being."

 

Since we're all human you'll see in all those religions that the saints and sages all reached some level of emptiness and bodily transformation. Although when I first delved into Buddhist thought, It was apparent to me that none of them come close to or describe the realization that Shakyamuni Buddha describes. There is a reason that Right View is stressed in Buddhism and why you hear of inherent emptiness and interdependent causation. Also (compared to other religions) in terms of actually cultivating the path it gives the clearest descriptions of the meditative states/realms and a lotta other things that other religions and philosophies lack. It's for that reason that (for the most part) I now focus on Buddhism. Of course I haven't accepted Buddhism on blind faith. There was a time that I rejected it and which is why I'm set on delving deeper into what it describes through meditative efforts.

 

Also like VJ said: Even after people reached enlightenment, when they taught they would still instruct others according to the teachings of Buddhism.

 

Thanks, but don't worry death died although he was a tough cookie.

As for VJ... when he rants on (and on and on) he hurts Buddhism imo. That all folks.

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

 

As for VJ... when he rants on (and on and on) he hurts Buddhism imo.

 

Om

 

Hi bob,

 

I think you only say this because you don't like what Buddhism teaches. I think it's more of a subjective reaction based upon clinging to the idea of a supreme source or supreme self of all. I understand the attachment very well, it's very deep and hard to let go of.

[Vajrahridaya]

To ask a person to 100% understand something from the point of view of anyone apart from himself (especially a long dead guy I can't talk with, how convenient) is IMO knowingly cheating with your rhetoric, unkowingingly cheating with it, misunderstanding, or you could be enlightened and just playing

 

The Buddha isn't dead, he's alive in living examples of Buddhahood today.

 

It's just a vehicle, another one. And before you tell me you have the best one, don't.

 

 

Buddhism is a vehicle with a specific destination. It's not the best vehicle if you don't want Buddhahood. Other vehicles have their destinations, and Buddhism has it's destination, they are not the same destinations. The Best vehicle is the one that takes you to the destination that you want.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

The discussion of cause and effect most likely started with the Greeks. Perhaps before? Further, Buddhism is a reactionary philosophy against certain belief systems of the time. For anyone to claim absolute knowledge of the workings of the cosmos or even claim that everything written about the Buddha is 100% correct, is making a misrepresentation!

 

 

 

The Greeks did not in the way the Buddha did, because emptiness is specifically a Buddhist teaching with a very specific meaning and intention leading to the realization and implication of anatta. The Greeks generally felt that there was something there that was ultimate behind all of it, or a soul that was inherent, etc. Some of the Greek thinkers came pretty close though they didn't teach with the same level of meditative insight as the Buddha. Of which you seem to not know much about because you keep alluding to limitations that can only be due to a lack of self experience. You haven't unlocked your own hidden potential, so you think it can't be possible in anyone else, because you haven't glimpsed your own possibilities in meditation.

 

The Buddhas teaching on dependent origination/emptiness transcending extremes of Nihilism and Eternalism is not merely an intellectual exercise, which is how you seem to treat it. The Greek philosophers were good thinkers by the way, but that's it really, it was just some good thinking for the most part. But when you experience directly the meaning of D.O./emptiness/no-self then you get an intuition of what was written down about the Buddha and his teachings. Who knows exactly and to what degree of 100% correct it is? You don't, for all you know it could be all 100% correct. But you seem to be one of those glass is half empty types.

 

When you experience the inner meaning of his teachings on a level that transcends the normal state of mind. His teachings on dependent origination and emptiness. As well as his teachings on the jhana states and their causes and effects. His teachings on the 8 fold path and the necessity of right view all becomes clear in a flash of brilliant insight that cannot be denied.

 

You can deny it but I know that it's mostly just a thinking exercise for you.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yeah I have some mental understanding of dependent origination/ emptiness bascially from reading books on the subject but unfortunately I have no real practical experience of it and I do wonder if this is possible or likely without long retreats of many months or years?. Some people say this is the way of the monk and sometimes I wonder if you really do need to become a monk for a long period of time for your practice to blossom, do you think can a part time practitioner of only an hour or so a day while living a normal life can get there with this path?

 

I definitely think so, especially in the more Tantric lineages that teach ways that you can integrate the experience of your hour or so with the rest of your day.

 

Also, Rex recommended Dzogchen. I agree! There is no better Buddhist teaching for the people of todays society than Dzogchen in my personal opinion. Plenty of current and historical masters agree. It just cuts right through and it doesn't make you feel like you have to be a monk in order to have the realization of the teaching.

 

p.s. Of course, even in Dzogchen, retreat every once in a while is recommended where you can give full days for a few days or more to the practice.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[adept]

The Buddha isn't dead, he's alive in living examples of Buddhahood today.

 

He died 2500 years ago. He was a mortal man like everyone else. He is not some deified god-being who lives forever.

[adept]

Buddhism is a vehicle with a specific destination. It's not the best vehicle if you don't want Buddhahood. Other vehicles have their destinations, and Buddhism has it's destination, they are not the same destinations. The Best vehicle is the one that takes you to the destination that you want.

 

What is this destination that you speak of. There is no fixed point in Buddhism as you have stated 1000's of times in numerous threads.

Seems like a contradiction.

[Vajrahridaya]

What is this destination that you speak of. There is no fixed point in Buddhism as you have stated 1000's of times in numerous threads.

Seems like a contradiction.

 

Buddhahood. It's very specific. Other than that, I was being figurative and not literal. This contradiction has it's context.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

He died 2500 years ago. He was a mortal man like everyone else. He is not some deified god-being who lives forever.

 

To many Buddhists, he does live forever in a Pureland or Satyaloka. For me, based on direct experience, these realms spoken about in the texts do exist.

 

Taoist sages also supposedly go to a celestial realm after leaving the body. I don't doubt the validity of this either.

 

But as far as what the Buddha represented and taught, that does live on, in current Buddhist masters of various traditions.

[adept]

To many Buddhists, he does live forever in a Pureland or Satyaloka.

 

Well that's another of your theories debunked. No everlasting self.

You seem to be doing a good job of contradicting yourself and don't even need the help of anyone here to do that. :lol:

Edited November 27, 2010 by adept

[Vajrahridaya]

Well that's another of your theories debunked. No everlasting self.

You seem to be doing a good job of contradicting yourself and don't even need the help of anyone here to do that. :lol:

 

These are not my theories, as these are teachings of the Buddha and Buddhist masters since him to current.

 

The realized Buddhas relative self keeps arising every moment dependent upon the propulsion of beginningless karmas as a sentient being turned into endless conditions of liberated expression as a Buddha. The Samsaric experience is beginningless therefore the experience of Nirvana is endless. There doesn't need to be an underlying permanent self essence in order for activity to continue manifesting arising moment to moment, each new moment arising dependent upon the prier.

 

So, there is no contradiction.

 

If you are really interested in understanding how this works, you might want to start with Abhidharma or Abhidharma kosha. You will find better explanations there.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[strawdog65]

Hello everyone!

 

I have some thoughts to share.

 

I have been off and on following this thread.

And the depth of knowledge is unmistakable...

 

But, I do not understand the purpose of this thread.

 

My own understanding of the Tao, which has been echoed time

and again by others here in this forum, is the completeness of

the whole, and that all things in the universe are in fact part of the same.

 

All belief, all peoples, all distinctions made by man/woman kind...

All are part of the one TAO.

 

It therefore seems utterly transparent to me, that any quarrel that

one belief is some how more "true" than another, is to be seen as a

realization, that because of it's dependent separateness, is in of

it's self necessarily incomplete.

 

Just as the spark that is enlightenment,

can be said to come from the same source,

regardless of the localized belief system, So too...

 

ALL is encompassed Within the completeness of the Whole which is the TAO.

 

TAO is the universal everything.

 

NO Thing is separate or apart from IT, We can never remove ourselves

from that which contains US.

 

 

Within the universal TAO...

All arguments of belief are contained. All views of separateness are contained.

All distinctions are irrelevant, Any arguments to the contrary only serve

to satisfy the useless vanity of man/womankind. The illusion of different beliefs

changes nothing, we are encompassed, we are contained, there is no escaping

this completeness, we are all ONE. We are TAO.

 

Peace and understanding!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello everyone!

 

I have some thoughts to share.

 

I have been off and on following this thread.

And the depth of knowledge is unmistakable...

 

But, I do not understand the purpose of this thread.

 

My own understanding of the Tao, which has been echoed time

and again by others here in this forum, is the completeness of

the whole, and that all things in the universe are in fact part of the same.

 

All belief, all peoples, all distinctions made by man/woman kind...

All are part of the one TAO.

 

It therefore seems utterly transparent to me, that any quarrel that

one belief is some how more "true" than another, is to be seen as a

realization, that because of it's dependent separateness, is in of

it's self necessarily incomplete.

 

Just as the spark that is enlightenment,

can be said to come from the same source,

regardless of the localized belief system, So too...

 

ALL is encompassed Within the completeness of the Whole which is the TAO.

 

TAO is the universal everything.

 

NO Thing is separate or apart from IT, We can never remove ourselves

from that which contains US.

 

 

Within the universal TAO...

All arguments of belief are contained. All views of separateness are contained.

All distinctions are irrelevant, Any arguments to the contrary only serve

to satisfy the useless vanity of man/womankind. The illusion of different beliefs

changes nothing, we are encompassed, we are contained, there is no escaping

this completeness, we are all ONE. We are TAO.

 

Peace and understanding!

 

Buddhism does not follow the oneness theory of meditative experience shared by substantial non-dualisms like mystic Islam, mystic Christianity, Hinduism of various sorts and not all interpretations of Taoism are compatible with the Buddhas Dharma. We are not one, though we are connected, there is no inherent one that we all are. That would be considered a Samsaric view according to Buddhadharma. The experience of oneness is valid, but, according to Buddhism, the causes and conditions surrounding the experience and what the experience actually is, is generally not understood by most spiritual paths.

[Birch]

"according to Buddhism, the causes and conditions surrounding the experience and what the experience actually is, is generally not understood by most spiritual paths."

 

"The" experience? Smacks of fundamentalism to me.

 

I'm just concerned that these monotheistic religions - which i consider Buddhism to be one of- also get made up to take people off their own spiritual path and to put them on one that suits whomever it suits. I read in Foreign Affairs the other day that the US was very happy about the spread of Pentecostalism (sp?) in the "Global South" because it would make those countries more "US-friendly." That kind of idea just freaks me out.

 

I find that while Buddhism has lots of neat spiritual tools in its box, which I'm thankful for getting my hands on BTW, it also seems to go beyond just handing them out with a set of instructions and letting people do with them what they will. To me this is contrary to the religion's advertisement of offering "liberation."

 

I'm also concerned because it seems to morph into whatever flavour "the times" seem to offer up. I tend not to trust morphing things

[strawdog65]

Buddhism does not follow the oneness theory of meditative experience shared by substantial non-dualisms like mystic Islam, mystic Christianity, Hinduism of various sorts and not all interpretations of Taoism are compatible with the Buddhas Dharma. We are not one, though we are connected, there is no inherent one that we all are. That would be considered a Samsaric view according to Buddhadharma. The experience of oneness is valid, but, according to Buddhism, the causes and conditions surrounding the experience and what the experience actually is, is generally not understood by most spiritual paths.

 

 

 

 

Hello Vajrahridaya!

 

 

Thank you for all your knowledge and experience you take

the time to share with us so openly on this forum.

 

Just as Water accepts it's path amongst all obstacles, I too

accept the Path and any obstacles before me as an

opportunity to be part of this flow.

 

To contend for the sake of purely contention, is of no use.

The Way and all existence contained within, is not refutable,

as I of lowly mind and body see it.

 

Whether you accept the Way or not, does not separate you from it.

 

 

I accept YOU as a part of ME within the everything that is the TAO.

 

You and I swim within the same Ocean that is the Way.

 

All explanation is contained within the whole that is TAO.

 

 

Peace and understanding !

[ralis]

Vajraji's weak narrative is chaotic and fractured. It is the same technique used by politicians, propagandists and religious fundamentalists. This gives Vajraji plenty of wiggle room to avoid critical debate and to always be right.

[Vajrahridaya]

"according to Buddhism, the causes and conditions surrounding the experience and what the experience actually is, is generally not understood by most spiritual paths."

 

"The" experience? Smacks of fundamentalism to me.

 

The Buddha was a fundamentalist. As unpopular in our New Age, all paths come from one and lead to one-ism, his teachings still hold true for us Buddhists and contradict this New Age mix and match era.

 

What I meant when I said, "The" experience. Was that the experience of oneness that everyone has and thinks is proof that we are all one, is really just an expanded state of consciousness that most individuals naturally cling to as proof of an ultimate Truth or ultimate Self of all, when the Buddha said that it was not. That due to the emptiness of all things and consciousness, the expansion of consciousness is natural in states of intense focus or letting go. But to mis-understand the experience as proof of a "one" behind the many, would be a mistake and you would be misunderstanding the causes and conditions surrounding "the" experience.

I'm just concerned that these monotheistic religions - which i consider Buddhism to be one of-

 

Buddhism is NOT monotheistic and where on earth did you get the idea that it was?

Buddhism is in fact essentially Atheist. Though there are some polytheist leanings as far as the practice goes, that is only in appearance and not in essence, since the essence of Buddhism is no essence.

 

I find that while Buddhism has lots of neat spiritual tools in its box, which I'm thankful for getting my hands on BTW, it also seems to go beyond just handing them out with a set of instructions and letting people do with them what they will. To me this is contrary to the religion's advertisement of offering "liberation."

 

I don't think you are familiar with what the Buddha taught outside of movies like, "Little Buddha."

 

I'm also concerned because it seems to morph into whatever flavour "the times" seem to offer up. I tend not to trust morphing things

 

There are basically 4 branches; Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Dzogchen and all of these are around 2,000 or more years old in their own right. But yes, the form of Buddhism can be very flexible because of the nature of the teaching, yet the essential teaching of the Shakyamuni is the same throughout all forms of Buddhism.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Vajrahridaya