is buddhism satanism? [my appologies for the mere suggestion!]

[Nick the Pilot]

V,

If I am mistaken in my understanding of the Buddhist teaching of Nirvana/Nibbana, I am sorry. What is the true nature of Nirvana/Nibbana? How is Nirvana/Nibbana different than Enlightenment?

"...can you explain why you think Nibbana/Nirvana is a removal of seprateness....?

--> Because that is what it is, according to my belief system. It will be interesting to compare your and my take on Nirvana.

[_Z_]

vaj

metta

i am nowhere close to being wise, if you found any benefit in my words it is due to your own good karma ripening

i certainly hope so - and thanks.

i can see the emptiness in all things, it is difficult to balance that greater reality with our western vision of the physically real. i have tried to formulate a universal vision which incorporates both. perhaps though, this is what keeps bringing things back in a circular fashion, it may be time to let go of trying to have an explanation that includes phenomenon.
there doesn’t seem to be one.

i know what you mean yet by what are things then manifest? i would have to un-include the universe hmm however i am leaning towards the idea of phenomenal existence as being in the moment without beginning nor end. this would remove the need for a creative force or presence.

umm... what?

by ‘tao of synchronicity’ i was imagining ‘the way’ [tao] as including all paths.

btw. can the tao be connected to buddhism as i do? it appears quite logical to me that between emptiness and existence there is a tao. for me it is simply ‘the still wind’ [buddha being] and ‘the blowing wind’ [tao].

such a view seems tantamount to than having a view of predestination; moreover "decided" requires a being to decide neither of which seem to be evidenced.

true. without predestination one thing is anothers environment and each entity interacts with one another. i suppose it would be absurd for there to be a being which decides everything, it seams more true to think of everything as deciding or doing for itself.

what is meant by the "mind being the creator" is that it is through the process of conceptual overlay that sentient beings experience reality rather than direct, naked awareness.

conceptual overlay? i see your point and it is very interesting and profound. however it suggests as buddhism generally does, that everything is kinda hanging in the air... the mind with thoughts attached to it, would not really exist, much as the universe and phenomenon would not. that is to say; this 'conceptual overlay' is some vague entity that neither exists nor dont exist - so what the hell is it [and existence]?

then what are all these things? ok we may say it is all illusion but this is a vague explanation which doesn’t say what things are, to me it gives us a duel view of two realities and negates the universality of the ‘all’!

in a pretty famous Sutta the Buddha states that there is nothing which can rightly be considered the "ground of being"

one day i must read them sutta’s . i will give this particular point much thought - thanks. i have always imagined the very opposite where the emptiness [infinity] is the very ground of things, with the tao being the result of this in connection to things, as if the ground rolls along with its emanational forms. again this is a universal thing.

though, perhaps, i should clarify this a bit and say that the innate luminisotity of mind is, to a certain extent, real insofar as we have to work with this to attain to the Other Shore. once there i’m not sure that such conceptions are relevant.

i see. once there everything ceases to exist - yet the universe will remain! ~ outside of that ‘more real’ experience of being on the other shore?

namaste

nick, hi

--> I believe Satan (the Kumaras) did what they did because they thought they were doing the right thing. Whatever they did, I too believe it was their own doing.

well if they were buddhist then it perhaps would have been. i don’t think i should blend religions so much though as i usually do, there are limits to where one simply confuses the other falsely.

--> You and I agree. We will discard those forms by our own means, when they become no longer useful

indeed, yet what if they are gods gift? what if we simply didn’t exist before our birth into this world, then indeed the birth of a child would be a miraculous thing! i wonder if this is the metaphoric message of the virgin birth - where we are all given life by god. ...and form! ...to become sons and daughters of god!

We have levels of consiousness that are higher than even these. We forgot how to use them. The purpose of life is to re-remember how to use them.

hmm i think i see now! it is by having no arisings that we are not connected to anything and are hence free.

--> Can you imagine how things will be when you finally get rid of your physical body forever?

yes; peace.

--> The finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

indeed ‘infinity is incomparative’. and so to is its state of being i suppose.

--> You are discussing a period of time that has "no conceivable beginning nor imaginable end."

hence is eternal in that. is a continuum.

God was good, so we needed a bad Satan.

yes yet there is a dualism of emptiness and existentiality - it may only be relevant to the latter, yet is still there.

--> Animals are conscious, but not self-conscious.

i think they are self conscious. the reason why they are so linked to the primal nature of things is that they act upon impulses. this does not mean that they are not aware, but that they are very in tune with their surrounding and one another - as if connected by the heart.

--> An amoeba is being urged on towards Nirvana by an unconscious force called Daiviprakriti. It IS making progress towards Nirvana, although it is not aware of it. An amoeba will gain Enlightenment just like we will, although it is much further behind in the process. An amoeba will become self-aware when it finally becomes human, zillions of years in the future.

there are problems with this; humans may not exist that much longer, the sun will not - so some poor amoebas will never make it.

perhaps we are missing the point here! that enlightenment is there to be arrived at, yet that doesn’t mean existence was built for that purpose!

indeed it may not have any purpose whatsoever.

thanks
_Z_

phew that took two hours

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

If I am mistaken in my understanding of the Buddhist teaching of Nirvana/Nibbana, I am sorry. What is the true nature of Nirvana/Nibbana? How is Nirvana/Nibbana different than Enlightenment?

i would strongly encourage you to read the Suttas regarding these things and see for your self what they have to say.

briefly, the Suttas describe Nibbana as "peace, bliss, the total extinguishing of karma, the state of being Awake" which, as you can see, has nothing to do with nihilism as you asserted. in point of fact the nihilistic view is one which is specifically talked about in the Suttas as constituting a misunderstanding of emptiness and one which can be difficult for a practiconer to extracate themselves from.

--> Because that is what it is, according to my belief system. It will be interesting to compare your and my take on Nirvana.

please understand that i am not offering "my take" on this subject. i am, to the best of my ability, suggesting to you that you investigate this topic from our point of view and discern what we mean by it and, i suspect, that when you do you will understand why i tend to respond in the manner in which i do.

i would strongly suggest the Access To Insight website as a good starting point to read a great deal of the canon in English.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by _Z_

i can see the emptiness in all things, it is difficult to balance that greater reality with our western vision of the physically real.

i congratulate you on your attainment!

western thought, at least in a physics sense, also demonstrates that phenomena are empty.. at the atomic scale. each molecule is mostly empty space which is, as you can imagine, quite an extraordinary coorelation betwixt schools of thought which have arisen in drastically different cultural millieus.

i know what you mean yet by what are things then manifest? i would have to un-include the universe hmm however i am leaning towards the idea of phenomenal existence as being in the moment without beginning nor end. this would remove the need for a creative force or presence.

from an overall point of view, each moment of consciousness is continually arising conditioned by the previous moment and so forth. it is, in a very real sense, a matter of having an undistracted mind which is focused on the present moment which is arising.

by ‘tao of synchronicity’ i was imagining ‘the way’ [tao] as including all paths.

btw. can the tao be connected to buddhism as i do? it appears quite logical to me that between emptiness and existence there is a tao. for me it is simply ‘the still wind’ [buddha being] and ‘the blowing wind’ [tao].

it would certainly depend on the schools of Buddhism and Tao of which we are speaking. a great many beings do not realize that Tao, like Buddhadharma, has different schools of praxis and philosophical positions. so, having said that, my entry to the Buddhadharma was through the Northern Complete Reality school of Tao.

that said, the Ch'an Buddhist school is, by and large, a Buddhist tradition that has been influced by Tao whereas the Southern Complete Reality School of Tao is a Taoist tradition which has been influenced by Buddhadharma.

regarding emtpiness, perhaps this excerpt will be of some value:

"According to the explanation of the highest Buddhist philosophical school, Madhyamaka-Prasangika, external phenomena are not mere projections or creations of the mind. External phenomena have a distinct nature, which is different from the mind.

The meaning of all phenomena being mere labels or designations is that they exist and acquire their identities by means of our denomination or designation of them. This does not mean that there is no phenomenon apart from the name, imputation, or label, but rather that if we analyze and search objectively for the essence of any phenomenon, it will be un-findable.

Phenomena are unable to withstand such analysis; therefore, they do not exist objectively. Yet, since they exist, there should be some level of existence; therefore, it is only through our own process of labeling or designation that things are said to exist.

Except for the Prasangika school, all the other Buddhist schools of thought identify the existence of phenomena within the basis of designation; therefore, they maintain that there is some kind of objective existence.

Since the lower schools of Buddhist thought all accept that things exist inherently, they assert some kind of objective existence, maintaining that things exist in their own right and from their own side. This is because they identify phenomena within the basis of designation.

For the Prasangikas, if anything exists objectively and is identified within the basis of designation, then that is, in fact, equivalent to saying that it exists autonomously, that it has an independent nature and exists in its own right.

This is a philosophical tenet of the Yogacara school in which external reality is negated, that is, the atomically structured external world is negated. Because the proponents of the Yogacara philosophical system assert that things cannot exist other than as projections of one's own mind, they also maintain that there is no atomically structured external physical reality independent of mind. By analyzing along these lines, Yogacara proponents conclude that there is no atomicly structured external reality.

This conclusion is reached because of not having understood the most subtle level of emptiness as expounded by the Prasangikas. In fact, Yogacarins assert that things have no inherent existence, and that if you analyze something and do not find any essence, then it does not exist at all.

Prasangikas, on the other hand, when confronted with this un-findability of the essence of the object, conclude that this is an indication that objects do not exist inherently, not that they do not exist at all. This is where the difference lies between the two schools."

true. without predestination one thing is anothers environment and each entity interacts with one another. i suppose it would be absurd for there to be a being which decides everything, it seams more true to think of everything as deciding or doing for itself.

a very real way of understanding the Buddhadharma is as a means to experience reality, as it is, without any conceptual interpetation or overlay and this experience is what we are usually going on about with Satori and Samadhi and that sort of thing. it happens, for many beings, like flashes of lighting in the dark of night.. for a moment, everything is completely illumed but we cannot cognitively process the totality of the experience. the aim, then, is to enable the mind to rest in this awareness on the meditation cushion and through our everyday activities.

at a certain stage of the practice the difference between night and day is said to dissapate, though such has not happened for me, the lineage holder from my school has remarked that he does not expereience any difference between day and night he perceives it all in shades of blue. take it for what its worth

conceptual overlay?

in Carteisan terms it would be the subject/object dichotomy where we experience reality in terms of experience and experiencer.

i see your point and it is very interesting and profound. however it suggests as buddhism generally does, that everything is kinda hanging in the air... the mind with thoughts attached to it, would not really exist, much as the universe and phenomenon would not. that is to say; this 'conceptual overlay' is some vague entity that neither exists nor dont exist - so what the hell is it [and existence]?

if your term "really exists" means eternally existing from its own side, then Buddhism would suggest that such is not the case.

have you heard of our teaching called Interdependent Co-Arising?

our conceptual overlay is just that.. the conceptions that we project unto phenomena and they can take myriad forms.

as for existence.. it simply is.... no conceptions need apply

then what are all these things? ok we may say it is all illusion but this is a vague explanation which doesn’t say what things are, to me it gives us a duel view of two realities and negates the universality of the ‘all’!

pheonema are what they are without underlying ideations. a tree is a tree, rock a rock and water is water all without any conceptions about them being applicable.

for instance, when you think of the word "tree" what comes to mind?

one day i must read them sutta’s . i will give this particular point much thought - thanks. i have always imagined the very opposite where the emptiness [infinity] is the very ground of things, with the tao being the result of this in connection to things, as if the ground rolls along with its emanational forms. again this is a universal thing.

perhaps it is due to equating "lack of inheret permanent characteristic" with "infinity"?

within the context of the Vajrayana, and i should point out that this is particular to the Vajrayana, the inherent luminisoity of mind is the ground from which experience arises, further a case can be made from the Higher Yoga Tantras that such luminosity is inherent and partless existing prior to the arising of birth and death.

if you have a serious interest in this subject, from our point of view, i cannot extol the virtues of Secret of the Vajra World by Reginald Ray sufficiently. he provides an academic text infused with the realizations of a practioner.

i see. once there everything ceases to exist - yet the universe will remain! ~ outside of that ‘more real’ experience of being on the other shore?

remember.. our conceptions about reality are not, in fact, reality themselves.

when your conceptions are all gone and do not arise in response to sensory stimuli, what remains?

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

V,

If you have time, please feel free to share your understanding of Nirvana vs. Enlightenment.

[Nick the Pilot]

Z, you said,

"i don’t think i should blend religions so much though as i usually do, there are limits to where one simply confuses the other falsely."

--> That is true. On the other hand, you are taking responsibility for your belief system. That is a great thing to do. I always encourage people to take a look at each separate part of their belief system. If they do not like one particular piece, throw it out.

"indeed, yet what if they are gods gift?"

--> Hey, if that terminology works for you, go for it.

"what if we simply didn’t exist before our birth into this world, then indeed the birth of a child would be a miraculous thing!"

--> I see the birth of a child as special, whether it is the first or 100th incarnation.

"i wonder if this is the metaphoric message of the virgin birth - where we are all given life by god."

--> I see the virgin birth as the virgin birth of the universe. For unto us a child is born. For unto us an entire universe is born. There have been many universes — the Son has had many siblings. According to my belief system, the universe was born out of virgin "pre-cosmic pre-matter." That is what I think the symbolism of the virgin stands for.

"...to become sons and daughters of god!"

--> ...to become sons and daughters of the Universal Mind!

"Animals are conscious, but not self-conscious. --> i think they are self conscious."

--> I have four cats. They are very clever and very inquisitive. But self-aware? I would say no.

"this does not mean that they are not aware...."

--> Aware, yes. Self-aware, no.

"they are very in tune with their surrounding and one another - as if connected by the heart."

--> I believe an animal has a well-developed astral body — the body of emotion.

"there are problems with this; humans may not exist that much longer, the sun will not - so some poor amoebas will never make it."

--> I think amoebas will become human long before the sun burns out.

"enlightenment is there to be arrived at, yet that doesn’t mean existence was built for that purpose!"

--> I see Enlightenment as one more step along the Path, rather than the end of the Path.

"phew that took two hours"

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

there is no phenomena or noumena which is viewed as eternal from the Buddhist point of view, as i understand it. in a pretty famous Sutta the Buddha states that there is nothing which can rightly be considered the "ground of being" (to paraphrase from Paul Tillich) not Nibbana or Buddhanature nor any sort of sentient being from which all things emmanate forth.

This only caught my eye because I am presently re-reading The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh. How does one square this sutra with teachers who may seem to say other than what is found in them? By way of example, in this book Thich Nhat Hanh describes nirvana as exactly this – “the ground of being.” Of course we are talking about the ineffable here! He also describes the dharma body as the Buddha that is “everlasting.” Perhaps this all relates to the "infallibility of doctrine" or the two truths?


s.

[Francis king]

i don't know how it is where u live, but koala-porn is banned here!

[_Z_]

namaste
hi vaj, sorry i took so long to reply, been thinking!
great post!

This does not mean that there is no phenomenon apart from the name, imputation, or label, but rather that if we analyze and search objectively for the essence of any phenomenon, it will be un-findable.

i agree nothing is absolute nor distinct, equally so the whole and entirety cannot be defined. this leaves it all in a no mans land always between things, and is the very reason why i opt for the ‘universal entity’ option, where everything is part of an everchanging entity which is indescribable ~ and very evasive. i think this view of reality is in many traditions inc the awen in druidry which is kinda like the tao.

For the Prasangikas, if anything exists objectively and is identified within the basis of designation, then that is, in fact, equivalent to saying that it exists autonomously, that it has an independent nature and exists in its own right.
yet all things are not distinct! and thus cannot exist independently as one forms from another without ever actually fully becoming itself.

here then we see what i call a ‘string of entity’ there is no such thing but it shows how everything from objective realities to meaning are connected as if on a string [see define ‘it’ thread for a better understanding].

Because the proponents of the Yogacara philosophical system assert that things cannot exist other than as projections of one’s own mind, they also maintain that there is no atomically structured external physical reality independent of mind.

universal mind then. i would disagree that things are projections of ones own mind ~ rather that they are ‘projections’ or forms of the universal mind, just as we are.

a very real way of understanding the Buddhadharma is as a means to experience reality, as it is, without any conceptual interpetation or overlay and this experience is what we are usually going on about with Satori and Samadhi and that sort of thing. it happens, for many beings, like flashes of lighting in the dark of night.. for a moment, everything is completely illumed but we cannot cognitively process the totality of the experience.

truly i can go there in my mind , yet still see this state [not a state as such i know] as part of the all [where ‘part’ is not a part as such] as the universal. it’s not much of a grand flash or anything though, it is simply a part of us. we arrive at it then come back from it in our mind just as we emanate from it as the ‘original self’, for me it is a very simple thing if not the simplest [not attaining it but the thing itself].

it would appear that paradoxically, everything is within the emptiness!? then when you are the emptiness everything is outside of it.

the lineage holder from my school has remarked that he does not expereience any difference between day and night he perceives it all in shades of blue.

fascinating change of his perspective view! the world we see is entirely made up in the mind, light radiation is turned to info which is interpreted by the brain and ‘made’ into a vision of our reality. thus as his view has changed, so does his subjective reality ~ but not the objective reality.

in Carteisan terms it would be the subject/object dichotomy where we experience reality in terms of experience and experiencer.

interesting. i will think on this too. what i see of it at the moment, is that the experiencer or centralised entity of being can be made manifest, which to me means that we have an innate ability to be!

have you heard of our teaching called Interdependent Co-Arising?

i think i have read a little on it - but prey enlighten me!

as for existence.. it simply is.... no conceptions need apply

ha, see above - the greater universal view needs interpretation, it is only by this that we arrive at nirvana surely?

phenomena are what they are without underlying ideations. a tree is a tree, rock a rock and water is water all without any conceptions about them being applicable.

i disagree entirely, everything is within everything! they all have there own inherrant meaning. secondly law is primary! the way things change and come into being is entirely dictated by law which in turn is entirely dictated to by universality ~ where universal mind and its entity are one, e.g light is one as white, then can become seven because it is the way of the universal mind according to what light is within it.

i will do a comprehensive post on universal mind at some point, so far i have been considering the notion for 23 years, but i am nearly close to some kind of completion, it is simply a case of waiting for it to arrive in my mind.

perhaps it is due to equating "lack of inheret permanent characteristic" with "infinity"?

ah i see! it cannot be the ground as it has no essence or no part of anything for things to be made manifest of them.

if you have a serious interest in this subject, from our point of view, i cannot extol the virtues of Secret of the Vajra World by Reginald Ray sufficiently. he provides an academic text infused with the realizations of a practioner.
thank you! the only book on buddhism that i have read properly is the clear

light of bliss by gesha kelsand gyatso [forgive if spelling is wrong].
when your conceptions are all gone and do not arise in response to sensory stimuli, what remains?

the pheonix.

in other words, as i was trying to explain above, it would seam that reality as entire is all inclusive and at the same time all un-inclusive according to ones position and direction to it - or perspective.

metta