Heartmind

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, but this Buddha-Dhatu cannot be what Aaron is referring to because it cannot, by definition, carry the karmic debt forward as it is clearly outside of samsara. I share Aaron's skepticism on this point. It's ironic that Buddhists work hard to underline the differentiation Buddhism and Hinduism, and yet the very thing that I find most off-putting about Buddhism is this refusal to let go of the concept of reincarnation which makes much more sense in the context of Hinduism than it does in the context of Budhhism...

 

It doesn't if you understand the Alayavijnana and you understand that we were never only physical, and that self clinging goes deeper than the physical brain.

 

It's makes perfect sense, but you'd really have to get into studying Buddhism.

 

Also, the statement you've quoted from tulku is wrong, he's misunderstanding what the buddha taught.

[doc benway]

It doesn't if you understand the Alayavijnana and you understand that we were never only physical, and that self clinging goes deeper than the physical brain.

 

It's makes perfect sense, but you'd really have to get into studying Buddhism.

 

Yeah but it's really just Atman in a different guise and Buddhists have gone through all kinds of machinations over the centuries to deny that and figure out a way to preserve Hindu and Vedanta dogma while trying, at the same time, to preserve the idea of emptiness. Too convoluted for me. This is why I gravitate much more toward Chan/Zen which stripped away all of that down to the essence, which is beautiful and elegant.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yeah but it's really just Atman in a different guise

 

Actually it really is not.

 

The many layers of the skandhas all the way to the alayavijnana, which is basically just the formless, individually unconscious tendencies for clinging to a self, are also empty.

 

This clinging of the skandhas as the 5 elemental radiances is prier to more dense manifestations as every 5 sense perceivable moment, and as it's also empty and inter-dependent, is also without self essence. It's very, very subtle, and Asanga say's that most yogi's don't get it or don't go that deep, but he say's that the 8th consciousness (alayavijnana or storehouse consciousness) is also dependent and not self, but if it's mistaken as a self it merely leads to re-absorption at the end of a cosmic aeon or at the end of ones life you enter into a formless bliss state without senses as you have taken up the skandha of consciousness as an unborn essence, which it is not.

 

This storehouse consciousness if experienced very deeply and the realization of emptiness is applied, becomes transformed into the experience of the tathagatagarbha, also empty of self essence.

 

Also, if you're really into Zen, then you'd get into Vasubhandu and Asanga, the propagators of the Yogachara school based upon theories of the Alayavijnana as they are Zen patriarchs and Zen is very much based upon these teachings. You'd then truly understand that the assertion of it's equality with the Vedantin atman has no basis in anything other than a mis-guided assumption. Of course, it helps to have meditative experience of the Alayavijnana, which can manifest as a blue bindu, sphere or blue vajra, deep in meditation or contemplation.

 

Your ideas of Zen as being some sort of stripped down thing is really a Western beast of a misunderstanding. All Zen patriarchs were deeply versed in the various traditional scriptures.

[doc benway]

 

Your ideas of Zen as being some sort of stripped down thing is really a Western beast of a misunderstanding. All Zen patriarchs were deeply versed in the various traditional scriptures.

Not at all accurate - the Zen patriarchs intentionally stripped away the chaff mostly because people have a tendency to cling to it and because it is gratuitous and dogmatic and much more appealing to the Hindu sensibility than the Chinese or Japanese.

Otherwise, it would remain in those traditions.

[Vajrahridaya]

Not at all accurate - the Zen patriarchs intentionally stripped away the chaff mostly because people have a tendency to cling to it and because it is gratuitous and dogmatic and much more appealing to the Hindu sensibility than the Chinese or Japanese.

Otherwise, it would remain in those traditions.

 

Not at all. If that were so, both Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu would not be considered Zen patriarchs.

 

 

Alayavijana is a Zen teaching, there is no way around it.

[doc benway]

Not at all. If that were so, both Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu would not be considered Zen patriarchs.

 

 

Alayavijana is a Zen teaching, there is no way around it.

No question that Alayavijana is a foundation of Zen but Zen views it more as pure Buddha-mind, it is not equivalent to the storehouse as it is viewed elsewhere.

The stripping away of the dogma was a gradual and progressive phenomenon.

You put too much importance in words and concepts.

I know you don't see that and I've let go of trying to convince people of anything.

None of it matters anyway.

So it goes...

[Vajrahridaya]

No question that Alayavijana is a foundation of Zen but Zen views it more as pure Buddha-mind, it is not equivalent to the storehouse as it is viewed elsewhere.

The stripping away of the dogma was a gradual and progressive phenomenon.

You put too much importance in words and concepts.

 

 

Actually I don't, I'm more interested in the experiencing of direct insight that they point to. But... if you couldn't understand my above explanation. So be it.

 

Like I said... the Alayavijana, when stripped of self clinging tendencies, is transformed into the experience of pure Buddhamind, which is why they are considered synonymous, as they are basically the same thing, just one is it's bound experience and the other it's liberated experience.

 

I know you don't see that and I've let go of trying to convince people of anything.

None of it matters anyway.

So it goes...

 

Do your thing, evolve where you are able. But, as long as you see "simple" and "complex" from an experience of dualistic standpoint, the understanding of emptiness will not be clear in all the dynamic forms of your being.

[doc benway]

Actually I don't, I'm more interested in the experiencing of direct insight that they point to. But... if you couldn't understand my above explanation. So be it.

 

Like I said... the Alayavijana, when stripped of self clinging tendencies, is transformed into the experience of pure Buddhamind, which is why they are considered synonymous, as they are basically the same thing, just one is it's bound experience and the other it's liberated experience.

 

 

 

Do your thing, evolve where you are able. But, as long as you see "simple" and "complex" from an experience of dualistic standpoint, the understanding of emptiness will not be clear in all the dynamic forms of your being.

 

Be well

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Be well

 

Cool pic by the way.

[doc benway]

Cool pic by the way.

Thanks - me in the Netherlands a few years back.

[Informer]

http://www.holisticshop.co.uk/articles/mahaparinirvana-sutra-buddha

If you ask most Buddhists whether there is any doctrine of a soul or eternal Self within the teachings of the Buddha, they will reply with a very definite "no!"

 

And yet a closer study of Mahayana Buddhism (one of the two main divisions of Buddhism) reveals that this is quite simply inaccurate. The Buddha teaches both the non-Self and the Self. Let us look at these two facets of his "Dharma" (Truth).

 

The misunderstanding by most Buddhists arises from the fact that the Buddha usually places the greatest emphasis on what is NOT the Soul or Self. Thus, the physical body, feelings, thoughts, impulses, and ordinary consciousness are labelled as "non-Self" or "non-Soul" (anatman). These elements of our worldly being are impermanent and subject to change and dissolution, so cannot sensibly be deemed our Soul. They make up our "mundane self", and that mundane self is dismissed as "a lie" by the Buddha. This fictitious worldly self or ego has no enduring reality - it is a constantly mutating stream of reincarnating desires which never find lasting satisfaction. Our worldly self is one big and painful illusion.

 

Most Buddhists stop here and preach this as the highest truth about selfhood. This, however, is only half the story. In the final phase of his teaching career, the Buddha revealed that there exists within each sentient being an innermost essence, which knows of no change and no death. He called this "the True Self" or "True Soul" (satya-atman). He also termed it the Buddha-Dhatu - the "Buddha-Principle" - or the tathagata-garbha, the "embryonic Buddha" latent within us.

 

I think along these lines as well.

[Informer]

If what vaj says is true, then what is the intent that cause awareness to stem from a certain chakra? Or even more, what is the intent that allows the transcendence of the body and chakra's forgoing individuality?

 

What is the intent that allows stilling of the mind?

 

I think these things are more obvious to those who have shifted awareness and discovered these aspects than it is for those who have not.

 

That intent + awareness is just like water, no form yet all forms.

 

A fixed form would not allow for all forms, this is obvious. The same goes for a point of view.

[Vajrahridaya]

If what vaj says is true, then what is the intent that cause awareness to stem from a certain chakra? Or even more, what is the intent that allows the transcendence of the body and chakra's forgoing individuality?

The intent for self discovery from within instead of from without.

 

What is the intent that allows stilling of the mind?

 

The intent to know the nature of thought, feelings and cognition itself directly through the power of awareness.

[Informer]

The intent for self discovery from within instead of from without.

 

 

 

The intent to know the nature of thought, feelings and cognition itself directly through the power of awareness.

 

OK, but what is the intent . . . .

 

You didn't answer the question imo.

[Vajrahridaya]

OK, but what is the intent . . . .

 

You didn't answer the question imo.

 

The intent is recognition of suffering.

 

i.e. from the Buddha's perspective of seeing that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is a cycle of suffering.

[Informer]

The intent is recognition of suffering.

 

i.e. from the Buddha's perspective of seeing that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is a cycle of suffering.

 

I think you are saying what is the intention, not defining what is intent.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think you are saying what is the intention, not defining what is intent.

 

Are you talking about, "will?"

 

Will is just movement (d.o.) as sentience. You do with it as you are influenced, either towards bondage or liberation.

[Informer]

Are you talking about, "will?"

 

Will is just movement (d.o.) as sentience. You do with it as you are influenced, either towards bondage or liberation.

 

Maybe this is good enough for you, but it is not for me.

 

What if what you are influenced to do with it is to throw it away? Do you throw it away ?

 

Some do.

[Vajrahridaya]

Maybe this is good enough for you, but it is not for me.

 

What if what you are influenced to do with it is to throw it away? Do you throw it away ?

 

Some do.

 

Throw will away? How can it be thrown away? It can only be seen through, it's emptiness realized.