Seth Ananda

Actually no, my problem with you is that you cling to your Ideas as absolutely true in all situations. I myself do not hold that stance about any single Idea in my head or any group of my Ideas together. Every theory I subscribe to is only for Its workability in my life/experience and is not taken as absolute Infallible truth, no matter the depth of Mystical experience it brings about, or how utterly Logical it may be as a theory. I also question my Interpretations of my experiences, and do not take them literally either. All this shows in my path which has changed track many times. For instance while I am not a Theist anymore, that is where I began. I did not 'just' believe as you have indicated all theists do, but rather asked "if there is a God, can I experience him/her/it, directly, myself?" I set out to find out, and that gave me many strange experiences, which it turns out are common to Mystics of all traditions. I was very comfortable in the Theistic tradition, Kashmir Shavism being my tradition by the way. [and please note that the MahaSiddha Saraha, was also a Kashmir Shavite as well as a Buddhist Mahamudra master, and that is a detail that leaves many Buddhist interpreters uncomfortable today as they often leave out his verses that have a KS nature or that refer to Shavite Yogi's - so There you have a main founder of Vajrayana being partly Involved with a theistic school.] But I was slowly won over by Buddhist thought. My own questionings about whether what my tradition calls God, or the experience of God, really 'was' God allowed this transformation to take place. Also I could not deny that Theism engenders a subtle clinging, which at least in myself I could see clearly, and 'for me' at this time Buddhist thought and practice allows me to drop even this. one day hopefully someone may help liberate my mind further with the right questions and a good communication style, but that will not be you, unless you learn to communicate properly. {assuming of course you have any wisdom} Proper communication requires understanding your own points clearly, and understanding the frames of reference others have, and exactly how they mean words you both share, that may have differing concepts attached to them. All your supposed 'wisdom' lectures where you bag all other Buddhists just show you do not even grasp the way other Buddhists understand Buddha's teachings. Seth.

Mal or Stig, if either of you decide to come down, I can put you up in our lounge room for a few days if you don't mind couch surfing... That will make it cheaper...

You are kidding right...? So your slip slop of mashing your out of context Interpretations of Vajrayana with some osho quotes and some theory's about light represent "highly researched and peer reviewed material" ? lol, that is just hilarious. It is awesome. Unfortunately my mind works to well to swallow your BS. It's a pity really because I think you are Intelligent. But I think you suffer from philosophical cowardice. Any time someone here has pointed at any of the major flaws in your theory's, you do not respond to the actual points, and just write up a wall of quotes. You seem to believe in 'Proof by Authority' as your constant quoting demonstrates. That is unfortunate. I like and agree with this...

I would suggest that Honesty can not be really talked about in a thread lorded over by Vmarco. You troll freely in other peoples threads, generally ruining them with your endless drivel and quote churning, yet you ask others to keep out of yours? Honesty. I hold myself to the highest standard of honesty I can. I constantly look for ways out of, or around the Ideas I have, or for ways that my thinking might be loosing it's grip on it's own subjective nature, and start trying to become objective facts. I have railed against beliefs for the last 20 years. I ask what ifs, I report on my own experiences and then question deeply into them. I am deeply Interested or even obsessed with 'Truth' but am extremely guarded and cautions with any 'Final' assertion... Unfortunately Vmarco I have not seen you exhibit the slightest trace of any of these qualities in all your boring and Illogical dialogues here, yet you remain utterly convinced of your own astonishing wisdom amongst all us lying dishonest plebeians. Honesty, Lol!

Great quote! Yours too 3bob I think its really Important to honour this experience, no matter who has it, or in what context. However one approaches it, It is a massive step or achievement for an Individual. That sometimes gets swept aside when we start discussing the finer points of how to Interpret the experience, and forget how amazing it is that people are even getting there in the first place. And although [as you know] I agree with Vajra and Xabir's points, as the Buddhist way of approaching this state is now my favourite, and works best for me personally, I feel Its very important not to denigrate others paths to this wondrousness. I also feel that certain paths are better for certain types of people, at least in periods of their lives. For me it was Theistic paths that first gave me the taste of this space, and at that time in my life I would have been incapable of reaching it in any other 'less theistic' traditions. So that tradition was perfect for me then. Blessings to all! Seth.

Hmm Osho is a personal Button for me. I think he did some great things, like bringing a more celebratory atmosphere to stuffy spiritual groups, and telling people they need to work on their shit as well as on their spiritual development, but... Spiking the punch with MDMA so everyone was getting blissed out on the Guru's 'energy' lol. Talking really slowly to sound in the moment when really he was just off his face on valium, which he was severely addicted to. He claimed to be a Tantric Master, yet had no training, and very little understanding of Tantric processes. He was virtually impotent, and could only really get off on voyeurism. To try to appear to be a Tantric Authority, he worte a Translation of the Vijnana Bhairava, a core tantric text which outlines 112 meditation techniques, and it is the worst translation ever, having almost nothing to do with the origional text [which I have read many times] He tries to make the text be primarily about Sex Orgasm and Death. In fact he is solely responsible for Tantra in the west being 'all about Sex' with none of the beauty and Spiritual depth. I tend to think the bad from him far out weighs the Good. His Ideas have infiltrated the modern spiritual world in many many ways. Now please note I have lived on Osho Sanyassin comunities and been friends with many Sanyassins over the years, and much of my Info is first hand descriptions of life with the fraud, and all I really see as coming out of his teachings are deeply Narcissistic people, who meditate a lot, think about themselves alot, are constantly looking for ways to have more Catharsis, to process anything from their circumsision trauma to their trauma of being alive or the collective unconscious trauma of... The spiritual justifications that they have access to, from Osho, are Immense and they use them to justify the most heinous acts of theft and backstabbing, drug dealing, and just plain old dishonourable behaviour. The older Sanyassins are so often in Real estate and are shrewd buisness people. He actively told people to buy property and set themselves up. Maybe that is just my Issue but I could never feel quite right about making money from real estate... In poona, they hired Gangs of thugs to clear out the neighbour slums, so they could expand their estate. Any way, in all his stuff I find elements of good, but its nearly always tainted with subtle negative elements. I do not think he had much Wisdom. But he was very very clever. He knew what people wanted, and he knew if he dressed that in spiritual clothing, that people would give him the world.

I myself am a great fan of both Shamanism and Buddhism. I see two differing versions of meaning used for the word soul. To me, when we say soul, as in soul retrieval, it means fragments of the psyche. Urges, energy, wants, dreams, and many many qualities of personalities, or even entire sub personality's that seem to be able to be thrown off, taken, taken on, absorbed, disconnected... I see this as the soul people describe when they say 'he has soul!' or 'he is so soulful', meaning that he comes from a deeper place inside himself in how he expresses. Or the other usage, is to describe the point of golden aware Inteligent and Intentional light that resides deep past the subtle sheaths/body's in a space that coincides with the right ventricle of the heart, and is the root of the human psyche. When I got to be it for 3 days, I knew I had found the root of me, Seth. It was probably a year before I found detailed references to this point, but since then have found teachings about it Hindu, Sufi, Christian, Kabbalastic and Shamanistic teachings. To me this is what people mean when describing an possibly eternal part of our psyche as our soul. [dont go all atman on me, and to keep this thread on track so I will not respond to any comments about E&DO that seem argumentative, but I wanted to add that I see this divine spark as also being Empty and Dependently Originating, and also, in reading some Buddhist Tantras I have come across them describing the point of Golden awareness/light that leaves from the heart at death.] On to soul retrieval, it is a fascinating practice and even more of a fascinating experience. When you realise that at some point you 'lost' something, and then get help getting it back, and from that point on your personality has an entirely new portion working along side you... Its weird, and really makes one question ones theory's about mind/self/personality/magick and so on... Similar with de-possession, which i see as a backwards kind of soul retrieval. Someone chucks out something {or someone} they thought were them, and suddenly a whole gamut of habits and personality traits are just gone - permanently. I helped an old fella move on from a friend years ago, and when he left, he took all his desire for cigarettes and strong blue cheeses with him. I love this stuff, we have such a strange, mystical and awesome existence Will we ever get to the bottom of it?

Sorry you too 3bob

Pretty much my point. I am not worshipping you, but you are a good example of someone who thinks for himself, and questions, [as does Vmarco] and these are crucial wonderful qualities. But, unlike Vmarco you bothered to learn the Buddhist Language others use, which makes you capable of having an Intelligent conversation, and sometimes challenging Buddhist structures in a way, Buddhists can understand and converse about. Most of Vmarco's speels leave me feeling like i just read a bad scifi script, and i still do not get what he was going on about. That may be just my own limitations. I love conversation myself, and do feel limited by typing. I often wonder if the same barriers would be present if we could all just meet up... Me and Vmarco, Ralis and Vajra, Xabir and Marblehead, Informer, Kate, serene, blasto, stig and you... all having coffee! It could be awesome! lol

heheh, I have my moments... Unfortunately patience is not one of my virtues yet. I will admit it, Vmaro pisses me off. He has a similar communication style to Gauss. His theory's are full of crazy, but when I try to understand what he is Implying, he fills it up with statements like 'backwards moving convex light is full spectrum mathematical tube torus empty substance that does not exist... And then he tops it all off with an Osho quote. That seals the deal for me. Osho drives me nuts! Could you really Imagine that I do not have buttons? Or maybe you just wanted to take a swing at me...? But what does all this have to do with the Lady's? What is stirring in your psyche?

Cool. In that case most Buddhist, at least the ones I admire are Free thought Buddhists. We sit for many many many hours of our life, looking to see if it could be true. Looking for flaws. Trying to find ways to prove it wrong is one of my main methods. If we just 'believed' in it, it would be very boring and not a mystical path. All I have ever wanted in my path was to experience truth for my self. For me Buddhism has brought that to me - for now. It lets me experience it, and no matter how hard I try I can not prove it wrong. I can see some potential problems and loopholes, especially as clasical Buddhist thought did not have the development of certain elements of post-modernism and its understanding of paradigms and meta-paradigms, but that is something that I am still analysing and contemplating. When I have given it a lot more thought I will post it for feed back. And even if their are valid points, it will not actually discount Buddhism, for the path still works.

I might add Vmarco, that you should take a few notes from Gold is Heavy. He actually understands Buddhist philosophy very very well, because he bothered to spend the time to learn it properly, and in places he offer excellent critiques or counter arguments to elements of the Buddhist perspective. I am not saying I always agree with him, but it is always a useful and Interesting conversation.

What? emptiness is not a goal, it is not a thing or a substance, it is simply the nature of things. How is that a goal? It can not be grasped after if it is not a thing. You are the one who turns it into a substance. Sure in Buddhist teachings Its Important to see it, but it is not the goal per say, the goal is Enlightenment for the sake off all sentient Beings. I agree with this... Buddha's teachings range from very simple to very complex and profound, although most of the subtelty is still lost on you What like Osho or Dolano? You are hilarious in your use of words like 'mature' or 'group think' to discount what actual Buddhists study and what Buddhism actually means. It gets even funnier, when you quote Osho. You separate your self from Buddhists at large, claiming you are the only honest one among them, because you are a 'freethought' Buddhist, like that means something, and then you selectively choose a few Interpretations that suit you and Ignore the rest. The entire set of Buddhist teachings, are logical, and fit together perfectly if you understand the context of them being aimed at different people with different capacities. You seem to want to prove your points, or to distinguish yourself as a philosopher of considerable Insight yet you do not even have the guts to learn Buddhist teachings properly, in a way that would allow you to communicate with us, by understanding our perspective. You say you understand it, but then when you feed back your version of what we mean, you twist it all around, add a whole bunch of assumptions and totally get it wrong. How can you argue when you do not know the perspective you argue against - which you clearly do not. I have been trying to understand how you mean your stuff, but there are so many Illogical or plain stupid mish mashes of Buddhist, Osho, Dolano, politics, and pseudo science/mathematics that it seems pointless. You could learn from Buddha and also be able to communicate to us as, how did you put it? Imbeciles, but then you would not be seen as somehow having a vastly superior Intelect to all the lame ass Buddhists who pollute the atmosphere around you with their 12 century and on teachings. Absolutely. Form is empty of any Inherent existence, period. That is not at all saying that form is filled with a mysterious substance called 'Emptiness'. Pseudo science look at me I'm so smart drivel. Fake Buddhism. Blah blah. Buddhist masters since then have done astonishing things, things you will never accomplish in this life. What? more mewling mind vomit. You are not even speaking clearly. And how do you reach this conclusion? You said things come from emptiness, a view Buddha rejected. Thats just trying to create a 'ground' or 'source' for everything and is reverting to eternalism, the very stance Buddha utterly rejected. There is no flow between emptiness and form. emptiness is not a thing that can flow, or do anything. It is just the nature of things as they are: Inherently empty. Right back at ya! lol May your vision be purified! Seth.

Also for anyone interested in doing a more in depth study, CowTao put me on to a fantastic book called 'The Sun of wisdom.' http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Wisdom-Teachings-Nagarjunas-Fundamental/dp/1570629994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312550584&sr=8-1 It makes Nargajuna very accessible. Thanks again Cow, pricless...

I Like these 11 points on Emptiness: Emptiness is not a substance Emptiness is not a substratum or background Emptiness is not light Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness Emptiness is not the Absolute Emptiness does not exist on its own Objects do not consist of emptiness Objects do not arise from emptiness Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I" Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind from this superb article: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

I am sorry but this is the stupidest post about Buddhism I have ever read. Emptiness is a substance unseen? lol really? Tell me about your experience of this magical substance? From emptiness all form arises? So what about dependent origination? Buddha taught this from day one, in thousands of teachings over and over again in as many ways as was probably humanly possible in one life time. Things and events give rise to things and events. Emptiness is not a creator, or a producer. It is the true nature of every existing condition, and when I say true nature I do not mean as some substance, I mean that the true nature of things is that they have no Inherent existence. Its sad that you call your self a Buddhist [free thought variety] and are an Intelligent individual, yet can not see the compiled levels of eternalism and ridiculousness that taint your supposedly free perspective. Seth out.

I would Like to add that, In my experience, the 3rd eye is a subsidiary of the Heart. The heart centre is a perceptive organ in its own right, with full Knowing, often called 'silent knowledge' and is simply the deepest core of our mind. If Mind was seen as a sphere, thinking is the circumference while heart is the centre. The Heartmind apart from 'just' Knowing [lol] also has each of the higher senses. It 'sees' 'hears' and so on. It is how I communicate with the nature spirits and other denizens. It is also how I view the energetic realms. It is what allows me to Interact with the deepest parts of the universe. The third eye, in my book, is its subtle sensing system, just the way my senses are the physical sensing system...

Yes How? I really liked your post Forest by the way, but in exploring awareness, the only thing i can find to say about it, is that it experiences stuff/objects. So How can it be imagined without objects to experience? Any quality we give it that we claim we experience as its nature, are experiences or objects within awareness. Thus not awareness itself. Awareness is the greatest ? or mystery. My little formula is ? -> O which describes the 'seeming' perceptive direction of awareness [?] looking at [->] an object [O]. But even that is not really true. Awareness can never be removed from the act of perceiving. So maybe everything is awareness/mystery. I feel safe saying that because I will never make awareness into a self. It is too mysterious and can not be clung too and it too seems new in each new moment. Peace.

Hey Lucky, In Buddhist view, this is what we describe as Absolute View. Relative view however allows for 'free will' Individual decisions, fun and so on... This seems to bother lots of people, but for me Its great. The Relative and Absolute can not be separated, so I get to have my cake and eat it too. I enjoy life, and being a person, but simultaneously I know that none of it is Inherently 'real' and that who I am is more like an ever changing stream, than a solid fixed thing. Or said another way, I simultaneously get to know I have no self, while i enjoy being a person. To me thats great. I enjoy the natural arisings, and no longer take them so seriously or get as worked up. Life has just gotten so much better, and I had a good life before in many ways. Also my heart is just open, really open In ways it never was, far more often

Hehe, that is what I have been saying to you in all our posts. You ask me point blank 'do you exist, yes or no?' and I say, 'Relatively yes, Ultimately no!' Means the same thing.

No as far as I understand, that is not Buddhist teaching, but a typical mistake most westerners make when approaching emptiness teachings. Emptiness can not be the opposite of anything because it is not a 'thing', but rather it is the nature of things. If you said the nature of the sun was Fiery heat, you would not then mistakenly believe that fiery heat was the opposite of the sun. It is not a thing that can be added or subtracted from some thing ever at any time, as you can not remove some things nature. Quoting from some book on light is not going to make emptiness suddenly into a void, or a phenomena that is the opposite of existence. Here are the 11 points on Emptiness: Emptiness is not a substance Emptiness is not a substratum or background Emptiness is not light Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness Emptiness is not the Absolute Emptiness does not exist on its own Objects do not consist of emptiness Objects do not arise from emptiness Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I" Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind Thats from this great Link: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html That will help you understand properly the actual meaning of emptiness as currently accepted by most schools of Buddhism. If you disagree, please get a good grip on the Idea, for the sake of understanding the perspective of the other Buddhists here. That will go a long way in clarifying our conversations, and make sure that we each know what the other means when we use the same word. Blessings.

Bingo!

{my Bold addition to his quote} This one sentence of yours shows a major flaw in your understanding of Buddhist thought. 1. Form and emptiness are not opposites. 2. Formlessness has nothing to do with emptiness. 3. Emptiness is simply the nature of everything, either form or formlessness. The reason everything is empty is because each thing that arises, comes about in a way that is dependent on countless other causes. Thus it is said to have no 'Inherent' or self existing nature, and is therefore not ultimately real. Not Ultimately real means Empty. Empty does not mean some kind of void, or space, or potential or any quality what so ever whatsoever. It is simply the true nature of all phenomena. It is not the opposite of form in any way, but the true nature of it...