[Vmarco]

[Otis]

So, how many oxymorons, that Common Knowledge considers true, can we recognize as hinderences to Awakening?

 

V

LOL! Like "Common Knowledge"?

 

I'm teasing. Your point is good.

 

The ones that jump immediately to my mind include:

Right Speech, Right Thinking, Right View, etc. These all point at useful things, but the "right" within the names suggests actual correct fixed perspectives, which is very different than what I think the Buddha was suggesting, which is surrender of perspective.

 

And then there's:

My body, my mind, my life.

 

How about: "the true nature of reality"?

 

Actually, most jargon in spirituality has a self-defeating quality, because it implies a literal-ness to the language that is counter-productive.

[RiverSnake]

I find that oxymorons propel oneself to new levels of awarness because they bring light to the dynamics of reality and drive us to dig deeper into our own essence.

 

 

An example of this in the Zen tradition is Koans.

[goldisheavy]

I find that oxymorons propel oneself to new levels of awarness because they bring light to the dynamics of reality and drive us to dig deeper into our own essence.

 

 

An example of this in the Zen tradition is Koans.

 

If you take oxymorons for granted, they don't have the power of koans.

[goldisheavy]

Vmarco, you make an interesting point that I generally agree with. I just have some questions here.

 

 

Source Energy

Present Time

Healthy competition

Individual Wholeness

Transcendental God

Unconditional belief

Here and Now

Natural theology

 

In this list, do you mind specifically going over these three:

 

Transcendental God

 

Here and Now

 

Individual Wholeness

 

Please tell me where do you see the contradictions. For the record, I don't believe in God, so please don't read more into my question than is necessary. I just want to see how the logic here works out.

 

Thank you in advance.

[Vmarco]

Vmarco, you make an interesting point that I generally agree with. I just have some questions here.

 

In this list, do you mind specifically going over these three:

 

Transcendental God

 

Here and Now

 

Individual Wholeness

 

Please tell me where do you see the contradictions.

 

 

 

Transcendental God.

 

A belief in no god is about the same as a belief in god,...both are beliefs. All dictionary definitions of god are conditions,...the transcendent is not.

 

God defined by Webster's:

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).

2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).

3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).

4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned).

A very handsome man (condition).

A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

 

In the 9 dimensions of Vajrayana and Bon, the belief in theism ends at the lower 5th density of consciousness,...what researcher Robert Monroe called 'Religious Terminus.' Although the transcendental can be experienced in lower levels, the transcendental itself begins at the middle 5th density. The 6th is the nirvana level,...7th and 8th, the Vajra and Buddhic fields,....while the 9th is actually a non-dimension, that is, Source. Source is a synonym for Undivided Light. Undivided Light is proof that no god exists.

 

Here and Now.

 

To have a 'here' there must be a 'there' (subject-object, center-boundary, yin-yang). There is no "now" is the "here," just as there is no present in time. Here and Now is thus an important oxymoron for those who wish a more intimate understanding of the first absolute bodhichitta, which is, to see all one perceives as a dream. The 'here', like thought, is always in the past.

 

Anyone wishing to Gnow Thyself (gnothi seauton) must uncover the present. Before one can gnow Who they are, one must realize When they are. The permanent, unchanging Self is not in the past.

 

Individual Wholeness.

 

Individual and Other are delusions of duality, just as One and Many. There is no Individual without an other, nor a One without a Many.

 

In another post I mentioned,...Visualize a keyhole for a moment, one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, as in old Colonial and Victorian homes. Now, describe that hole. Some may say that it has the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle aligned on the bottom; others could respond that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate that is attached to the door, which is connected to the wall, etc. Perhaps the hole could be looked through, so one could remark about what is seen on the other side. However, none of that actually describes the hole; all of the preceding descriptions are narratives about what is around or can be seen through the hole. Nevertheless, that is how most persons, especially Westerners and scientists, perceive their own wholeness: by what is around it.

 

If that didn't satisfy, please continue for clarifications.

 

V

[goldisheavy]

Transcendental God.

 

A belief in no god is about the same as a belief in god,...both are beliefs. All dictionary definitions of god are conditions,...the transcendent is not.

 

God defined by Webster's:

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).

2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).

3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).

4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned).

A very handsome man (condition).

A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

 

In the 9 dimensions of Vajrayana and Bon, the belief in theism ends at the lower 5th density of consciousness,...what researcher Robert Monroe called 'Religious Terminus.' Although the transcendental can be experienced in lower levels, the transcendental itself begins at the middle 5th density. The 6th is the nirvana level,...7th and 8th, the Vajra and Buddhic fields,....while the 9th is actually a non-dimension, that is, Source. Source is a synonym for Undivided Light. Undivided Light is proof that no god exists.

 

I see. We can take this further. We can say something can either be transcendental or not. So transcendental is already a condition, but it's also not a condition.

 

How about this one: relative and absolute. Is absolute defined relative to relative? If yes, then absolute is relative. If relative is relative, then it's conditional, then there are conditions when relative is not relative, so relative is at least sometimes absolute.

 

Here and Now.

 

To have a 'here' there must be a 'there' (subject-object, center-boundary, yin-yang). There is no "now" is the "here," just as there is no present in time. Here and Now is thus an important oxymoron for those who wish a more intimate understanding of the first absolute bodhichitta, which is, to see all one perceives as a dream. The 'here', like thought, is always in the past.

 

I understand the bit about here vs there, but you're a bit dodgy about the now. Things do happen. And they do happen now. Dreams or not is irrelevant. There is a sense in which whatever is happening now is not actually happening, but you are not explaining that sense.

 

Anyone wishing to Gnow Thyself (gnothi seauton) must uncover the present. Before one can gnow Who they are, one must realize When they are. The permanent, unchanging Self is not in the past.

 

It's now. And it's here. "Here" has another meaning. It's not just opposite of "there". It also means it's wherever you find yourself and this "wherever" is not necessarily split into parts, such as part here and part there, but rather, it's whatever currently appears, as contextualized by whatever does not appear.

 

Both here and now are good words when used right, but they can lead to a misunderstanding.

 

Now is not something static like the present moment, which tries to capture a segment of the consciously apparent whole which is not even the total whole.

 

Individual Wholeness.

 

Individual and Other are delusions of duality, just as One and Many. There is no Individual without an other, nor a One without a Many.

 

There is, but to understand how it happens, you have to change what you believe individual is.

 

In another post I mentioned,...Visualize a keyhole for a moment, one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, as in old Colonial and Victorian homes. Now, describe that hole. Some may say that it has the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle aligned on the bottom; others could respond that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate that is attached to the door, which is connected to the wall, etc. Perhaps the hole could be looked through, so one could remark about what is seen on the other side. However, none of that actually describes the hole; all of the preceding descriptions are narratives about what is around or can be seen through the hole. Nevertheless, that is how most persons, especially Westerners and scientists, perceive their own wholeness: by what is around it.

 

That's correct. Meanings don't stand on their own. Meanings are only meaningful within context. Context is just a further group of meanings that is further contextualized by other meanings. These other meanings are contextualized further. Eventually known is contextualized by unknown. All this then hangs in the middle of nowhere, supported by nothing. Like mushrooms in the clouds and like a blind man seeing rainbows.

 

Just because when you explore the context you cannot reach a definitive point when to stop your exploration does not mean meanings are not explained by their context. Meanings exist. To deny this is blind ignorance. The meaning is not static, yes. The meaning cannot be definitively nailed down, yes. But the meaning is not altogether absent.

Edited July 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Words like "individual," "self" and "I" are tricky. There is an ignorant aspect to those words and an enlightened aspect. An individual is not merely that which is individuated. Self is not merely something different from and complementary to other. And I am not merely who I currently believe I am. Because this is so, you have to honor both the wisdom and the ignorance in those terms. As they say, don't throw away the baby with the bathwater.

Edited July 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vmarco]

[goldisheavy]

I admire your vocabulary, wordsmithing, and depth of understanding.

 

Uh, oh...

 

Yes, transcendental is a condition leading to, or uncovering, the Unconditional,..as in the reverse of descension is ascension. So transcendental is like a direction. On the 7th and 8th densities, transcendental would be meaningless.

 

That's an interesting and new (for me) way to think about what it means for something to be transcendental. Thanks for that.

 

In one way, absolute can be conceptualized through a contrast with relative. But absolute is neither conditional, changeable, or relative.

 

So De Nile is not just a river in Egypt, eh? Absolute is relative and relative is sometimes absolute. Can you dig it?

 

For those obscured from the understanding of emptiness, they see divided light as relative.

 

What do you mean by divided light? What other types of light are there?

 

The "form" minded observe divided light as traveling 186k mps relative to whatever speed they are traveling,...yet from light's point of view, it travels no distance in no time, and thus has no need of speed. E = mc² points to relativity,...wheras the equation mc² < c points to the absolute.

 

Wouldn't m c squared always be greater than c? How can mc^2 be less than c? It seems to break the rules of mathematics if c is a positive number, which I think it is. Plus the equation itself is meaningless anyway, because mass is irrelevant for our discussion.

 

Imagine accelerating to the so-called speed of light, that is 299,792 kilometers per second (186,282 miles per second). If you are unfamiliar with Einstein’s theory of relativity, as you approach this so-called speed of light, time slows to zero, space no longer exists, and mass cancels itself out.

 

If I understand correctly, mass becomes infinite at the speed of light instead of canceling itself out. That's kind of why the acceleration stops too (so then things can't go faster than the speed of light because they become too massive to keep accelerating). But I am not a physicist and will gladly accept corrections from anyone who studies physics for a living.

 

You do not enter a new dimension, but a dimensionlessness within the still bliss of undivided light.

 

Light doesn't feel a thing. It's us who feel things like pain or bliss.

 

For those who have already ventured there, an immediate inner inquiry comes to our attention if we allow it: How did you reach a velocity of 299,792 kilometers per second and arrive at stillness?

 

Undivided, clear light has not traveled a meter in all eternity.

 

What do you mean by undivided light? How is it clear? Is divided light dirty or obscured in some way? I don't understand these references.

 

Our duality reality of divided, projected, simulated light is 299,792 kilometers per second slower than the stillness of what mahamudra calls the clear light of Vajra. When you realize that, you begin to gnow Who you are because you have had a taste of When you are. In duality, everything is in the past. All divided light is in the past. It makes no difference how fast energy equal mass square divided light (E=mc²) is moving, for even at 299,791 kilometers per second, undivided light is perceived as moving 299,792 kilometers per second faster. That’s why Einstein called it relativity. Energy–mass is relative, conditional, and in the past. mc² < c.

 

This is probably interesting for all the physicalists out there. These kind of speed of light gyrations don't grab me at all. It just doesn't feel personal or intimate. It all feels distant and irrelevant to me. I can't relate.

 

The Buddhists have a story about Shakyamuni Buddha and Angulimala, the wearer of a garland of fingers,...which I mentioned recently in another post. Angulimala was a notorious bandit who cut off a finger from each of his victims and wore them all around his neck. Although there are several variations of the story, the punch line is nearly the same. One day, Buddha, the light of Asia, was walking calmly along a road in the Kingdom of Kosala, where Angulimala was seeking his next victim. Seeing Buddha, Angulimala ran up to bash him from behind, yet he could not get close enough, and the faster he went, the Awakened One seemed to go that much faster. Infuriated and bewildered at not being able to catch him, Angulimala shouted for Buddha to stop. The light of Asia replied, “But I’m standing still. If you desire to catch me, you too must be still.” This is where oral traditions, especially Theravada ones, go off into different invented morals. The true pearl in the tale is that no matter how fast you move to catch light, light will always be 299,792 kilometers per second faster. Undivided light can only be caught through stillness.

 

This is the most round about way to explain things. It's kind of interesting, but I do hope you stop talking about light as if physics was in any way relevant. If I really want to find you, I look inside myself. You don't need fancy physics to explain why so. It's all about how the projection of the world works. All living beings live inside of me. And I also live inside of all living beings. All living beings live inside of each living being. Each living being lives inside of all living beings.

 

Through this experience, Angulimala acquired a taste of the present. Thus, when Buddha said, “Come, bhikkhu,” Angulimala removed his garland of fingers and became a devotee of the light. (A bhikkhu is a fully ordained male monastic). One taste of the present brings a realization that the past is not real, and who really wants what’s unreal besides the unreal?

 

No dodginess,...nothing happens "now." Things appear to happen in the perceived now or present,...because the senses can only perceive the past,...that's the delusion. Anything and everything you see,...right in this perceived moment,...is in the past. There is no Present, instant, or now in Time!

 

I don't agree with you, but it is an interesting thought to entertain.

Edited July 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vmarco]

[goldisheavy]

[thelerner]

Often the opposite of a great truth

is Another great truth.

 

Strange, but I've found it to be true.

 

my 2 cents

[Otis]

Often the opposite of a great truth

is Another great truth.

 

Strange, but I've found it to be true.

 

my 2 cents

Excellent!

[Vajrahridaya]

1. The absolute is not relative,...but beyond the sum of all relativity.

 

Are you just talking about emptiness? Because even the absolute is empty of inherent existence and if it has no relation with the relative, there is no creativity. Everything is absolutely empty but so is emptiness. When awareness touches this, there is luminosity, or a sense of clear light suffusing everything. Also, mind is faster than the speed of physical light and one can become aware of this through training. The only absolute I see that's uniform is emptiness and this transcends notions of light and darkness. But awareness of this is enlightening, illuminating, clarifying, etc.

 

I used to make lots of references to quantum physics in my posts as well. What you say is interesting. I also like David Bohm.

 

Yes, the present is also ungraspable.

 

One means to break out of this prison-illusion, or at least find some partners to escape with, is to relate with what can never leave you, and from which you can never leave. What a challenge!

 

V

 

Sure, samsara rightly cognized is experienced from the perspective of nirvana. In it while not of it.

[Otis]

f I understand correctly, mass becomes infinite at the speed of light instead of canceling itself out. That's kind of why the acceleration stops too (so then things can't go faster than the speed of light because they become too massive to keep accelerating).

In my understanding, any massive object, when accelerated toward the speed of light, will increase its mass exponentially, until (hypothetically) the mass would be infinite, if it were able to reach the speed of light, due to a divide-by-zero equation (but of course, that's why a massive object cannot reach the speed of light).

 

Particles without mass, however, like the photon, always travel at the speed of light.

[Vmarco]

[Vajrahridaya]

In reverse,...no, the Present is not ungraspable, nor ineffable, it's simply not within the motion of time.

 

Yes it is, because it is empty of inherent existence, so there is no one to grasp or is there anything concrete to grasp at. Liberation means free from the moment as well as the past and future in Buddhism, even if it's through the moment, referencing the past and seeing the future.

 

Physics references can be helpful in leaping from concepts to truths. “As a man who has devoted his entire life to the most clear-headed science to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: there is no matter as such.” Max Planck

 

No,...I was not specifically speaking of emptiness. Form is empty, and empty is form,...but the Absolute is beyond both. As I said,...The absolute is not relative,...but beyond the sum of all relativity. In other words, the absolute is what Is, after all form and emptiness has been added together,...the sum of which is their dissolution.

 

Non-duality is not empty,...form is empty, and empty is form. The goal isn't emptiness, but understanding emptiness. Emptiness is the disintegrated, unfolded, cold, ultra-violet, high frequency, radiated, anti-matter aspect of duality,...whereas form is the integrated, folded, hot, infra-red, low frequency, gravity, matter aspect of duality.

 

Emptiness (wisdom) and form (means) never unite, nor are ever separate. Their balance is their dissolution. Their unbalance is their illusion. That dissolution is the threshold to life. Life is beyond the sum of opposites. There is no emptiness in Life,...nor is there form.

 

Sure, but non-duality in Buddhism means not-two, it doesn't mean one.

 

Goethe exclaimed, “Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.” His passion in life was Light. Not light from the point of view of the deluded masses, but light from light's point of view.

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism means having clear cognition, not setting up light as an ultimate identity. That would just be reifying a formless state of jhana.

 

The Bible says that about six thousand years ago, the Hebrew Elohim destroyed the Middle East (Joshua 24:2–3) by way of a great flood because that area of creation “repented” them. After this onslaught of destruction, the gods said to Noah, “We have set our rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between us and every living creature with you on earth. When we bring a cloud over the earth, a rainbow shall appear” (Genesis 9:13–14). Anyone reading this must have seen a rainbow at least once. For a moment, visualize that rainbow from Genesis, as it was seen then. Can you imagine the colors as Noah saw them? Frankly, what I ask is quite improbable, but history does leave us some hints of the characteristics of the rainbows in those days.

 

In Daybreak, Friedrich Nietzsche comments, “How different nature must have appeared to the Greeks if, as we have to admit, their eyes were blind to blue and green.” Yes, quite different indeed, or were you thinking that the rainbow of Genesis during the Abrahamic Times had seven colors? You should not assume things or believe what you think. Assumptions and beliefs are the delusions of the sciential mind.

 

Homer, in the Iliad, describes the rainbow as having just one color. However, Xenophanes, the teacher of Parmenides, saw three colors in the phenomenon of a rainbow: purple, red, and a yellow-green. Later, in the meteorological treatise Meteorologica, written circa 340 BCE, Aristotle concurred that “the rainbow has three colors.” Thus, through that seemingly bichromatic vision, this was how the rainbow and narrow visible spectrum of our ancestors was represented in science, literature, and art until the Renaissance.

 

Isaac Newton and Johann Goethe both developed color theories that included the seven prismatic hues that most of us currently see. Towards a Theory of Colour (Farbenlehre) was, according to Goethe, his most important work in which he sought to understand the many physiological aspects of color in visible light.

 

People assume way too much. Vajrayana suggests that there is not a seven-color optical spectrum, as those Westerners born after the 13th century believe, but nine distinct wavelengths or hues of a rainbow. These nine colors, when we are awake to our perception, bring a fuller awareness of our authentic selves and a more integral meaning of life from the point of view of undivided light. Yes, object-ivists will sneer at such an idea, just as pre-renaissance object-ivists would have mocked any discussion of seven colors, or those before Columbus stone those who suggested the Earth revolved around the sun.

 

I suspect that the ability to view the nine rays of the visible spectrum isn’t a matter of evolving into a tetrachromatic vision, which many mammals, birds, and fish have, but a simple shift in our trichromatic vision, in which red, green, and violet are the primary colors of light, instead of the red, green, and blue with which we are familiar. (Note, that we are discussing light, not pigment.) In other words, this shift in primary colors, the detecting of a different quality and quantity in the quanta of divided light, will not arise through transmutation, but through transcendence. The physiology is already there.

 

Similar to the correspondence between the acceptance of zero as a number for commerce in the thirteenth century and our subsequent extended color vision, the shift to a nine-color optical-spectrum perception, in my view, will be both interrelated and commensurate with the understanding of the spiritual value of zero. As we accept the spirituality of zero on the inside, the outside will reflect back a clearer picture of reality.

 

There is a story about the natives not being able to see the ships of Columbus' troupe, due to not even being able to conceive of the possibility to begin with.

 

Zero is the fulcrum from which divided light and color manifest. Oneness is the divided lever through which duality effects its motion. Zero brings a reflection of undivided presence, whereas the reflection of one is always division and the past.

 

One is to form, what emptiness is to Many. And yet so many today seek Oneness, and other Aristotlian absurdities.

 

V

 

Emptiness in Buddhism means negating the tendency for grasping through concepts, emotions or spiritual power which allows for clear, or illumined cognitive awareness not hampered by this tendency for grasping at happiness through activity, even while activity is happening, which is the point of Nagarjunas' dialectic. Are you more talking about grokking? Or intuitively realizing, as free from the faculties of being while doing so through them? As in, being a Buddha means being free from being a Buddha as well.

 

Anyway, it sounds like you are setting up an argument to justify monistic idealism. Are you setting up an infinite "light" as the ultimate identity, or Self of everything?

[Vajrahridaya]

Or, are you talking about attaining the Jalus, or Rainbow Body of light?

[Vmarco]

[JustARandomPanda]

Don't get where you got "one" from,...in reference to "Sure, but non-duality in Buddhism means not-two, it doesn't mean one." There is no "one" beyond duality.

 

You lost me on this one. Can you please clarify?

 

The idea that "Enlightenment in Buddhism means having clear cognition", suggests that there is way to "clean" the skandhas into clarity. LOL Statements like that are so contrary the sutras and Mahamudras.

 

Really? That statement is contrary to sutras? Which sutras if I may ask? Also what is Mahamudras? It was my understanding that as one continues meditation over the years one will see through the skandas or see their "falseness". I confess even though I've read this statement - about the falsity of the skandas I do not in truth know what that actually means.

 

Clear Light, the fulcrum upon which duality effects its perceived motion is certainly formless

I take it this Clear Light is the Clear Light I've read the Dalai Lama reference? I thought whatever it was you discover (awaken to) was beyond even formlessness? Is this a Wrong View?

 

I recall mentioning the sadness of how Lineage Holders have polluted the Transmissions since the 13th century. One unenlightened personality teaching another over hundreds of years. In contemporary times there are people like Thich Nhat Hanh who said, "Until there is peace between religions, there can be no peace in the world." From that (oxymoronic) statement people believe that Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ is a masterwork that builds bridges by celebrating the best within Buddhism and Christianity. However, can there ever be peace between religions? Can conditions/beliefs ever enter the Unconditional, and the Unconditional remain Unconditional? The Abrahamic memes are in no way a viable path to Clear light.

http://www.uq.net.au...udchr0.htm#cont

 

How then is it proposed to awaken the Masses each to his/her own Clear Light? I thought Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ would at the very least create merit which would then create better conditions that arise in the world- like say fewer people in a population who support going to war. Is merit making unnecessary for Buddhahood?

 

A few years ago I attended a Pema Chödrön workshop, where this so-called Vajrayana Buddhist teacher colored the teachings of Chögyam Trungpa according to her own humanistic belief patterns to such an extent that it reflected very little of Vajrayana's essence. Yes, she connected with most of the crowd, but what she proselytized was Chödrön's Buddhism,..and connected no one with Vajrayana.

 

Does the Wikipedia page on Vajrayana give an accurate exposition of Vajrayana?

 

My personal observation is that few who practice Buddhism seem to have any real idea what Buddhism points to. Buddha purportedly said that he discovered something profound and luminous beyond all concepts. He tried to communicate that something, but few understood.

 

If what he pointed to is beyond all concepts yet concepts are one of the products of one of the skandhas then it seems logical to me one will not get a glimpse of understanding what Buddhism points to until one sees the falseness of each of them. Yet from scanning my own copy of Shurangama I was struck over and over how the Buddha was saying even ridiculously highly attained masters who had seen through the skandas often cannot see things rightly - and thus eventually fall from their high realization. I got the impression this could still be the case even of someone who has attained all the jhanas and the samadhis. I don't know if this includes the dhyanas. Are the dhyanas higher than the jhanas or samadhis?

 

As Tilopa said, The clear light cannot be revealed by canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises, of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; the clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals,...such as monistic idealism.

 

How interesting. This almost sounds to me like you agree with Ralis and against Vajrahidaya and CowTao. That whatever it is the Buddha pointed to is ultimately inexpressible in words, texts, etc. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

[Vajrahridaya]

[xabir2005]

 

You say it's a singular source of all reality, that's monistic idealism. That all things are one unwavering essence. That would be contrary to inter-dependent origination.

Actually what Vmarco realized is important, but it is only Stage 1 or maybe 2 of Thusness Seven Stages of Enlightenment: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

 

It is the realization of 'I AM'... I have tried to point out other aspects like non-dual but I don't think he sees it yet. (of course even non-dual is not yet anatta or shunyata)

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually what Vmarco realized is important, but it is only Stage 1 or maybe 2 of Thusness Seven Stages of Enlightenment: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

 

It is the realization of 'I AM'... I have tried to point out other aspects like non-dual but I don't think he sees it yet. (of course even non-dual is not yet anatta or shunyata)

 

Yes, it's definitely an amazing experience, the expansion of the light of ones consciousness beyond all objects of consciousness, including the body. This is not the end all be all of Buddhas liberation teachings though.

 

Also, I feel this necessity for a real physical war is wrong. Many Hindu's interpret the Bhagavad Gita like this, but it all must be understood as an inner metaphor.

 

Also, it's clear by reading the mystics (those that dive into the mystery of self) of various other traditions other than Buddhism, that the concepts apparent in these mono-theisms can be re-worked or re-interpreted in a way that more clearly matches what the Buddha taught, even though they don't appear as clear from the start like what the Buddha taught. I think as a process, Buddhism can only help through gradual integration, kind of like eugenics, not racial eugenics (which I'm not a fan of), but rather spiritual eugenics and not through actualized violent war. Basically through communication I think people will start to realize, over time and integration that... well ok, this works better and I become a better Christian through applying yoga and meditation techniques, as well as insight meditation, etc. Eventually, people will come to have realizations, they will ascend the ladder of capacity, incarnation after incarnation and will come around to realize Buddhahood through various means, not just one type of means.

 

We shouldn't force peoples capacities through violent upheaval, that just wouldn't be kosher.

[Vmarco]