click tracking
Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Jeff

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,250 profile views
  1. Riju, I hope you are well. It has been a while since we have chatted. Choosing a body (or next body) is not hard. Realizing that bodies themselves are inherently empty is in my opinion a much more important realizations. It is not about having the best body in the video game, but realizing the nature of the video game itself. Even Brahman himself is empty. Best, Jeff
  2. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Dharmakaya would sort of be like the shell (or bubble) of Shiva, if there was something for Shiva to emerge from. The Sambhogkaya would be kind of like Shakti “inside of” Shiva. Have fun with your research.
  3. Lankavatara Sutra - Study

    Yes, universal mind would be similar to the concept of Shiva. The difference would be that in buddhism there would be emptiness that the universal mind sort of emerges from. In KS, Shiva is not some container like the dharmakaya as there is nothing but Shiva. In Taoism, it would be like you are saying that the One = Dao, rather than emerges from the Dao.
  4. Found this definition... According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality,[67][138][139] That which is unborn and unchanging,[138][140] and "not sublatable",[67] and cannot be superseded by a still higher reality.[141][note 12][note 13] Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore maya. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth",[156] and In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes.[157][140] Brahman is considered to be the material cause[note 14] and the efficient cause[note 15]of all that exists.[139][158][159] Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe."[147] It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[160] Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities[note 16] to be Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[161][162] It means "true being-consciousness-bliss," [163][164] or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness".[165] Adi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical with Brahman and Atman.[163] The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda).[163] According to Adi Shankara, the knowledge of Brahman that Shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.[166] This point on not being superseded, completely unchanging and everything "inside" is what I had meant.
  5. Does not Brahman exist and is “permanent”? Also, the One with no other? Never changing?
  6. Then I have given you the wrong impression. It is more like this from the Tao Te Ching... Chapter FOUR The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled. Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things! FOURTEEN Look, it cannot be seen—it is beyond form. Listen, it cannot be heard—it is beyond sound. Grasp, it cannot be held—it is intangible. These three are indefinable; Therefore they are joined in one. From above it is not bright; From below it is not dark: An unbroken thread beyond description. It returns to nothingness. The form of the formless, The image of the imageless, It is called indefinable and beyond imagination. Stand before it and there is no beginning. Follow it and there is no end. Stay with the ancient Tao, Move with the present. Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.
  7. No, that is more a hindu concept with Brahman realizing itself. The Dao is not some separate thing. It is simply more like the empty infinite potential that the One emerges from.
  8. It is not really possible to experience anything beyond (universal) mind, that is the point.
  9. While I get what you and Tom are saying with the "space" concept, that is not really what I mean and attempting to describe. Space would be like an open an clear mind, but implies there need to be a mind in the first place. This is why people say that emptiness or Dao are beyond mind and indescribable. To me it is more like there is literally nothing, but there is infinite potential for something to exist/manifest. The space comes with the manifestation itself. In modern physics you get something like the concept of a Higg's field or Higg's particle. E = MC^2 within the universe, but in a Higg's field mass literally comes from nothing. It just sort of appears with no conversion from any possible energy source.
  10. In KS, the Parama Siva would translate to the Dharmakaya aspect of of Buddha. It is sort of like the stable bubble in emptiness in which all that exists or has the potential to exists resides. It is not really a level (like in layers of consciousness) or tattvas, it is more like the stable framework itself for all of the tattvas to have form. Hence, it sort of exists at all levels, but itself is not something that really exists. Another way to look at is that everything is really just an overlay transmission, and not really something that exists. The Parama Siva is sort of like potential of a transmission or overlay, not the overlay (or dataset of the transmission) itself.
  11. Fits. The difference between the two for me would be something like Dao = Nothing + Infinite potential, where the One = Everything that exists + has the potential to exist. The One emerges (or bubbles up) from the Dao.
  12. Yes, but the Dao is really not a thing. More like nothingness with infinite potential.
  13. We are effectively mixing frameworks or description. To your point, I am ultimately really saying that I do not personally agree with the concept of Shiva as described in KS. There is no ultimate “ultimate”. In theory there could be multiple distinct Shivas, each kind of its own relative ultimate. If one would want to stay with the KS framework, you would say that the Dao = One as you have described above.
  14. Yes, I am not bothering with Paramashiva concepts or trying to say a highest Shiva as somehow different than Shiva. Let’s just say for purposes of my view Shiva(with Shakti inside) is the One. In Buddhist terms, it would be like saying that Shiva is the Dharmakaya and Shakti is the Sambhogkaya.