fanatical Buddhists

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, I wasn't speaking about myself there. Just in general about those who cling to a part of emptiness/dependent arising (the view of them) and mistakenly think that the part (the view) is the whole.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Those who realize that they are emptiness/dependent arising see that they don't have to maintain any sort of view of it. Everything they do is it. They live it and are it effortlessly.

 

Perfect.

[thuscomeone]

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama6.asp

 

I suggest reading the whole chapter, but if you're in a hurry (or just lazy), start with 2:41:

 

 

 

Buddha was the best troll.

If you're suggesting that Buddha actually taught eternalism (which you are), you really need to get back to the basics.

 

Oh well, at least you're an eternalist rather than a nihilist. Both completely wrong views, but the latter is much worse in my opinion.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

If you're suggesting that Buddha actually taught eternalism (which you are), you really need to get back to the basics.

 

Oh well, at least you're an eternalist rather than a nihilist. Both completely wrong views, but the latter is much worse in my opinion.

 

Alayvijnana (storehouse consciousness, personal unconscious as an attempt at a Western equivalent) does not suggest eternalism. It suggests that ones mind streams' basis is an unconscious mixture of elemental radiance's and all types of clinging's based on identity clinging without beginning on a formless level, that one can empty into dharmakaya realization. Thus flipping these impressions of bondage into impressions of liberated activity of blissful energy (sambogakaya, subconscious, as an attempt at a Western equivalent) and conceptual elaboration through the nirmanakaya (body of expression, conscious expression, though of course a Buddha is conscious of all three on a non-dualistic level) by realizing directly the nature of one's Alayavijnana into Dharmakaya. One can speak of this in terms of both transformation (tantra) and self liberation (Dzogchen or whatever equivalent in Taoism I think it's Wu Wei?).

 

Does that make any sense to anyone other than me? I'm trying.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

Alayvijnana (storehouse consciousness, personal unconscious as an attempt at a Western equivalent) does not suggest eternalism. It suggests that ones mind streams' basis is an unconscious mixture of elemental radiance's and all types of clinging's based on identity clinging without beginning on a formless level, that one can empty into dharmakaya realization. Thus flipping these impressions of bondage into impressions of liberated activity of blissful energy (sambogakaya, subconscious, as an attempt at a Western equivalent) and conceptual elaboration through the nirmanakaya (body of expression, conscious expression, though of course a Buddha is conscious of all three on a non-dualistic level) by realizing directly the nature of one's Alayavijnana into Dharmakaya. One can speak of this in terms of both transformation (tantra) and self liberation (Dzogchen or whatever equivalent in Taoism I think it's Wu Wei?).

 

Does that make any sense to anyone other than me? I'm trying.

Makes perfect sense to me. The alaya is all too often taken to be and clung to as some super awareness/cosmic consciousness which is the source of all. In Zen, as Xabir has pointed out, masters all too often go no further than believing alaya to be a substantial source.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Makes perfect sense to me. The alaya is all too often taken to be and clung to as some super awareness/cosmic consciousness which is the source of all.

 

I agree! I think it was Asanga who said that Alayvijnana is both referring to individual seeds of mind stream as well as universal groups of mind stream seeds at the same time, making it both personal and interpersonal, while it's emptiness makes it impersonal which only Buddhas fully realize, thus being free from the universe while in it. Samsara is Nirvana... weeeeeeeeee!

[Vajrahridaya]

Nope sorry, it was Vasubhandu, Asangas brother.

[ralis]

Alayvijnana (storehouse consciousness, personal unconscious as an attempt at a Western equivalent) does not suggest eternalism. It suggests that ones mind streams' basis is an unconscious mixture of elemental radiance's and all types of clinging's based on identity clinging without beginning on a formless level, that one can empty into dharmakaya realization. Thus flipping these impressions of bondage into impressions of liberated activity of blissful energy (sambogakaya, subconscious, as an attempt at a Western equivalent) and conceptual elaboration through the nirmanakaya (body of expression, conscious expression, though of course a Buddha is conscious of all three on a non-dualistic level) by realizing directly the nature of one's Alayavijnana into Dharmakaya. One can speak of this in terms of both transformation (tantra) and self liberation (Dzogchen or whatever equivalent in Taoism I think it's Wu Wei?).

 

Does that make any sense to anyone other than me? I'm trying.

 

Trying? Exactly what does that mean?

 

This thread is about fanatical Buddhist's and you have proven it. More pseudo scholarly prose that does nothing but confuse most readers here. Most don't even know what the terms are.

 

 

all types of clinging's based on identity clinging without beginning on a formless level

 

 

I see this is an attempt at paradox. Seriously, it misses the point.

Edited July 17, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Trying? Exactly what does that mean?

 

It means that I'm trying to get the point across where one can understand that one's personal experiences of consciousness through unconscious (deep sleep) subconscious (dream sleep) and conscious living is already poised for the experience of Buddhahood, it's just flipping the state of non-recognition into recognition.

 

Marigpa into Rigpa.

 

Rigpa is...

 

Dharmakaya

Sambogakaya

Nirmanakaya

 

All experienced as a unity.

 

This thread is about fanatical Buddhist's and you have proven it. More pseudo scholarly prose that does nothing but confuse most readers here. Most don't even know what the terms are.

 

I don't much care about the name of the thread, it doesn't effect me either way.

 

I see this is an attempt at paradox. Seriously, it misses the point.

 

No ralis, it confuses you, but not everyone. I'm sorry that it confuses you. Just go sit over there in your supreme non-conceptual state of awareness, you're so formless ralis, so brilliant, you cut through all my fanatical scholarly prose... oh ralis, if only I could touch the level of your awareness.

 

Is that what you want from me ralis? For me to recognize how transcendent of my expressions you are? Should everyone recognize this as well? Is this what this 2+ years, nearly 3 years of shutting down our Buddhist discussion on this board which invites us to be here has been about?

 

Ralis, your recognition of heart-mind is supreme!! It's beyond the scriptures and the discussions from various siddha masters! It's awesome man, I bow to it.

 

It's funny how you think yourself to be beyond the many elaborations as expressed by Norbu. You should read his teachings more, not just public books.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I see this is an attempt at paradox. Seriously, it misses the point.

 

I forgot what you quoted.

 

No, not paradox, I mean that all our little levels of clinging are based upon the supreme clinging of "self identity".

 

No paradox talking here.

[Vajrahridaya]

By the way ralis, thanks for the opportunity for clarification.

[ralis]

 

 

No ralis, it confuses you, but not everyone. I'm sorry that it confuses you.

 

 

Doesn't confuse me. I am saying it doesn't express it well. That is all.

 

 

Is that what you want from me ralis? For me to recognize how transcendent of my expressions you are? Should everyone recognize this as well? Is this what this 2+ years, nearly 3 years of shutting down our Buddhist discussion on this board which invites us to be here has been about?

 

 

I want nothing from you. Exactly what makes your Buddhist discussion more important than any other on this forum? Is this your own private secret club? Who invited you on here and in case you didn't notice, this is a Taoist forum.

 

You expect everyone here to just sit back and read what you write without challenging you?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I want nothing from you. Exactly what makes your Buddhist discussion more important than any other on this forum? Is this your own private secret club? Who invited you on here and in case you didn't notice, this is a Taoist forum.

 

You expect everyone here to just sit back and read what you write without challenging you?

 

Dude, your heart is so uptight man. I don't go into every discussion, many times I just read without saying anything, many times agreeing or disagreeing but without the inspiration to say either.

 

Actually if you read above... "'Taoist Discussion'

Transcendent, mundane, talking through the middle.

Taoist, Buddhist, Non-sectarian cultivation discussion"

 

So, ! Nah, nah!

[Marblehead]

Look harder.

 

Hehehe. I don't have the time for that any more.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

You don't understand how absurd the implications of permanence would be.

 

Oh!, yes I do.

 

(And no, I'm still not a Buddhist. Hehehe.)

[lifeforce]

Well this thread has definitely proven that there are fanatical buddhists who frantically cling to their belief systems.

Name calling, slanging and superiority claims are very evident.

Seems like most of you should actually go back and check what the Buddha taught. Especially morality.

It did go to 20+ pages, as predicted, and could well go on and on.

These constant Buddhist propaganda threads are ridiculous and pointless.

They are becoming very boring and predictable, with the same participants 'back-slapping' and 'high-fiving' each other when another 'non-believer' is put into his/her place.

Find a Buddhist forum to do battle in, instead of ruining a Taoist discussion forum.

[Vajrahridaya]

Find a Buddhist forum to do battle in, instead of ruining a Taoist discussion forum.

 

You would have to give more time to it than passive scanning in order to learn something from anything stated.

 

p.s. This might just be a long shot, and this probably doesn't apply to everyone, but all these Taoists saying that we're some dogmatic Buddhists, might just be dogmatic Taoists... ???

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[juju]

Oh ralis, oh vaj,

I love it. It really, really makes my day to see you boxing hard and harder. It is a marvelous thread to study male behaviour

And ok, I have to admit that ralis makes me laugh far more.

Sorry Vaj.

But Ralis seems to be far more easily annoyed (I could not find a translation for my favourite word) and is so nicely predictable (well, the two of you are - like two spanish bulls; one a little bit more spanish may be, the other one a little more north-european).

 

Thanks for making me constantly laugh. Great thread - go on. I really do not know what I would do without it

 

(PS: And yes - there are as well some very interesting points of view and discussion themes inside. Thanks for that as well!)

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh ralis, oh vaj,

I love it. It really, really makes my day to see you boxing hard and harder. It is a marvelous thread to study male behaviour

And ok, I have to admit that ralis makes me laugh far more.

Sorry Vaj.

But Ralis seems to be far more easily annoyed (I could not find a translation for my favourite word) and is so nicely predictable (well, the two of you are - like two spanish bulls; one a little bit more spanish may be, the other one a little more north-european).

 

Thanks for making me constantly laugh. Great thread - go on. I really do not know what I would do without it

 

(PS: And yes - there are as well some very interesting points of view and discussion themes inside. Thanks for that as well!)

 

p.s. Well, um. Aaaaahhhhhhuuuuuuummmmmmmmm?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

... but all these Taoists saying that we're some dogmatic Buddhists, might just be dogmatic Taoists... ???

 

I haven't said that yet in this thread. Hehehe.

 

But you are rather dogmatic Vaj. Hahaha!!!

 

(But then I did note in that other thread where you said you have grown to respect Taoist thought much more recently.)

 

And the beat goes on.

[Vajrahridaya]

I haven't said that yet in this thread. Hehehe.

 

But you are rather dogmatic Vaj. Hahaha!!!

 

(But then I did note in that other thread where you said you have grown to respect Taoist thought much more recently.)

 

And the beat goes on.

 

I think certain surviving Taoist lineages might actually reach the same state as realized in Dzogchen/Mahamudra? I've said many times that it's probably the most intermingle-able with Buddhism. As it already has done so.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

I think certain surviving Taoist lineages might actually reach the same state as realized in Dzogchen/Mahamudra? I've said many times that it's probably the most intermingle-able with Buddhism. As it already has done so.

 

Maybe one of the impressive things about Taoism and Buddhism is that in China they managed to co-exist and inspire each other. I'm not a scholar or Chinese history so I am sure someone can pop up and point out the times they fought each other - but in the end we have Chan and books like the Golden Flower which came out of the soup of Taoism and Buddhism.

[Mal]

And I've a feeling they are going to learn to coexist on TTB in the near future too

[Marblehead]

And I've a feeling they are going to learn to coexist on TTB in the near future too

 

Great prediction Mal!!!

[3bob]

I had to ask myself that very deeply in order to go from Hinduism, which is a perspective I was very well meditated in, to dependent origination/emptiness, just like the Buddha did. He pulled the rug from under substantialist non-duality interpretations of the experience of "heart-mind" long ago. Those perspectives as expressed in the Upanishads, which are mostly post Buddha by the way, and those views as expressed in the Vedas, even the cherished Rig Veda. It's all right there in the pali suttas.

 

One cannot find a permanent "Self standing eternal" neither individually nor universally. He actually said this. So, either he is wrong or he is right. You can pull quotes out of context all night long. I know due to direct glimpses, due to insight which transcends the view of Brahmayoga on the nature of experience itself.

 

You pull this quote out of context, not knowing what he means, I say what he means due to having studied Dzogchen and you fight with it. You can say all you want, but I'm correcting the point of view. Because, the perspective you hold about these words is not the perspective that liberates. It's not, "right view."

 

You are clinging to a non-conceptual transcendent as a self standing reality, a will beyond phenomena. It's very subtle, the difference is very deep, and it can be realized, it can be understood, you can cut through.

 

Lonchenpa himself talks about wrong views in his Great Chariot text and in his explanations on the nature of mind.

 

Why not ask yourself the very same question 3bob?

 

I'm not the one here who persists in telling the many how 'lost' they are and how 'found' I am, although I'm here to tell you how unfound you are to be doing such. Btw, your lack of understanding of Hinduism regardless of a lot of past involvement in it does not make your final type conclusions regarding it universal truisms or valid in any way except to your self. (so I suggest that you quit pissing on it while extolling your present trip into Buddhism)

 

Om

Edited July 17, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

I haven't said that yet in this thread. Hehehe.

 

But you are rather dogmatic Vaj. Hahaha!!!

 

(But then I did note in that other thread where you said you have grown to respect Taoist thought much more recently.)

 

And the beat goes on.

 

Hey MH,

 

"and the beat goes on" regardless