goldisheavy

Dream on brother. I am his mirror more like. And yours too. I am the master of meanings; not their slave. I say what's what in this mind stream. When you internalize authenticity and authority like yours truly, then come talk to me again. So I'll see you 10000 lives from now, if you are very lucky and have been doing your homework. It's obvious you haven't even begun to contemplate, or the words "they" and "actually" would not appear so flippantly in the same sentence! What's actual? Do things have actual representation? Is there ACTUAL meaning of words? Next thing you'll say that there is some substance somewhere and that meanings are stable and are not alive.

You're one of the few people who get me then. If you laugh when you read my nonsense, that's exactly what I want. If some wisdom happens to slip through, that's just more fun. I try to be entertaining. Well, I try to entertain myself. But I think if anyone gets a kick out of my dance, so much the better. When one gets very serious about spiritual progress, one can no longer afford to be so serious anymore. It sounds funny, but I think it's true. I think you are probably right. But also, conventionally, historically, Dzogchen has always been at odds with some of the more dogmatic elements of Buddhism. There have been Buddhist teachers time and again that have criticized Dzogchen as heretical, and the Dozgchenpas have found themselves on the defensive from time to time. But really it's silly. At least, if you defend yourself, don't defend based on past history. Defend based on good insight that you offer RIGHT NOW, not based on he said she said from 10000 years ago. That's my opinion. Actually that's a damn, damn good question. Any real Dzogchen master can talk in-depth about it and can answer it right away without the run-around bullshit. In fact I can answer it if anyone asks me and I am not even a real master. I am a fake one. Why? First of all, I don't say it too seriously. I mean, if I was more conventional, I say "unwise" or "reckless", or if I want to be really soft as a feather, I say "hasty", but I say "morons". Big deal. I am yours. You can tell me what to do. Everyone does! People have told me what to do, think, and what not to do the second I joined this forum. It's all in good fun! If I cannot take the heat, I need to get out of the kitchen. Besides, imagine if I go to the meeting of Dzogchenpas and tell them, "oh listen, some people told me what to do, and I got so offended by it, I was paralyzed and didn't know what to do or not do". That's be so embarassing. I'd be laughed out. They'd say, "and you call yourself a sage? What kind of pussy are you? And you pretend you can tolerate the inconceivable manifestations if you cannot even tolerate being told what to do? What kind of moron do you think you are, gold? You joking? That's not how we roll. GTFO here." Indeed. It's mostly training for you guys. You should learn to ignore preachy behavior and egoism. If I give you just the right amount, it will act as a vaccine. Then when a real asshole shows up (as opposed to a fake one like me, a clown) then you'll be inoculated and won't take anything seriously. In this manner I will put an end to organized religion in my mind stream. I decided I've had enough of it. It's been a decent run, but it's time to melt it down for other ornaments.

How do you know this?

Well said! One shouldn't make love to the ornaments! Try to find the woman who is wearing the ornaments and fuck her and not her earrings. Indeed. He comes off like his doctrine is a slam dunk. He's got a lock on truth. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are the same. They are not the same. But anyone who insists they are categorically different, clearly different is also wrong. In reality the relationship between meanings is very interesting. No two meanings or symbols are necessarily the same. Nor are they necessarily different. It's hard to say exactly because what the relationship is, IS ALIVE. The relationship is life, is alive, is not inert, is not constant. It dances. It's kind of like trying to determine if the woman is on the left side of man in tango. You can't tell! They twirl around and sometimes the woman is on the left, sometimes on the right, and sometimes one cannot say where in terms of left/right, and then they twirl again. That's life. Even death is alive. Death is a living process of life. There is nothing dead in death. Death is life! There is only life. There is no death because nothing is dying. Everything is dying. This is the dance. It's not the final meaning, it's the dance of meaning. And here's another way to put it. Chuang Tzu said something like this, "The point of fish trap is fish. Once you get the fish, you can forget the trap. The point of the rabbit snare is the rabbit, once you get the rabbit you can forget the snare. The point of a word is meaning, once you get the meaning, you can forget the word." And I will elaborate: You can catch the same fish, the same for the purpose of consumption, via: - fishing hooks - spear - bare hands - a stick of dynamite (with a detonator) - a net Just to name a few methods. The methods are wildly different, but the fish, for the purpose of consumption is the same. However, if you want to build an aquarium, then the stick of the dynamite is not the right method, and thus is not the same as others. So it's not categorically the same and it's not categorically different either. The same fish can be caught in many many ways. So many many doctrines can reveal the same inner truth. Advaita can reveal the same truth as Buddhism and the same as Daoism and the same thing can also be revealed by non-traditional and largely original methods. This doesn't make Buddhism less valuable. This doesn't make Daoism less valuable. There is no need to get insecure and to start defending your pet doctrine.

When asked for proof, instead of talking about these supposedly preserved books, you go on about the lineage transmission, which is ORAL, btw... thus NO PROOF as we understand it in the West. In the West words are not proof of anything. You don't post a link to any book scans, which would be the closest you could come to a proof. Even with a book, you'd need experts to analyze it and date it. That's not easy to do! The experts will then argue and bicker about the books exact date and they will have good reasons to disagree. Thus even with a book you'll end up with NO PROOF again. So instead of just honestly saying that there is "no proof", you pretend like there is. That's what's GARBAGE in your post. I have no way to say it other than call it garbage. You're asked for something and in return you give a totally different thing. See.... Dzogchen doesn't need to be proven to work. It doesn't need a firm historical basis. Dozgchen people are so insecure. Every time Namkai Norbu talks about Dzogchen he gets so defensive about it. He always tries to justify it and place it within Buddhism. It's like he anticipates criticism and tries to answer it before he even hears the actual criticism. That's pathetic. That's no way a real Dzogchen master should act. That's very different from the fearless behavior of the real masters. A real Dzogchen master doesn't give a damn about placing their wisdom within convention, about giving themselves a firm conventional footing. When some guy, I forget his name, came to some other guy, forget his name too (who gives a damn what their name is? I get the point tho, listen to the point), he asked for the meaning of Dzogchen. The other guy remained silent. There was no answer! So this guy assumed the master was being a dick and wasn't teaching him anything! As soon as he thought so, he started to vomit and began dying. Then he thought his motivation was all wrong, and he was making too many assumptions, and he got better. The the master/other guy said, "listen, since you are so stupid and stubborn, I'll teach you... really I gave it all to you the first time, but you don't get it... there is nothing to understand... and since you don't get this yet, I'll teach you this and that tantras." See? Now do you think a guy like that, who worked in the fields with dirty arms, constantly used magic, ate body parts for dinner, and basically did whatever the fuck he wanted at all times, and who had pretty much no contact with what we call "the real world", a guy like that would give a damn about proving what he knows? About placing it in historical context???? If you think the answer is YES, then you understand nothing whatsoever... Dzogchen is about a visionary non-conventional experience. It's not about how to build a conventional reputation! Or about how to become a reputable tradition. It has nothing to do with any of that shit.

I am not qualified for the upper dantian practice in the same way I am not qualified to stick a fork in my eye and enjoy it. Here's a list of people who stuck a fork in their eye and failed to enjoy it.

No sir. You get what you deserve. Master Wang Liping taught you a wonderful lesson with the kindness of a grandmother. He could have taught you the same lesson by cutting your head off or anally raping you, but instead he just took your money!! You need to thank the master. His teaching is not as kind as mine though. I am teaching you this now, if you have the capacity to learn it, which I doubt -- what you seek is WITHIN YOU. Everything says that! But no one believes it in real life. People read it in books and say, "yes, that's true.... it is wonderful." Then they look where to book the next seminar. In other words, when you are taught in a kind manner, you don't get it. You need to be ripped off 10000000 times in a row before the lesson will actually sink in. You are lucky master Liping didn't eat your organs for dinner and only took your money. You're a moron who follows the glitter. Ok, so you don't follow the material glitter. You follow the "spiritual" glitter. This is a fitting reaction to your idiocy from the Dao. They are ready, but the teacher ripped them off. Their attitude of wanting words to match reality is not a wrong attitude. Alternatively put, they are not ready indeed, but NOT in the way you think they are not ready. Master Wang Liping has no secrets! That's what they are not ready to understand yet. All the secrets are inner reality of each sentient being. You don't receive them from a master or any entity. Oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh!!!! I am gonna scream! I think I just peed in my panties! Oh no, the master just scratched his nose.... *faint* oooooo..... Oh yea, considering how utterly worthless and stupid you are, it's a miracle he even agreed to take your money. If it was me, I wouldn't even shit on the same hectare with you. So yea, you're damn lucky he graced you with his presence.

Well said. And when this is said, what is said? Don't say you know what it means. But if you say you don't know what it means, then I know you're a liar. For example, what does "true identity" mean? Ever thought of it? If identities don't have stable meanings, as Buddhist philosophers so aptly demonstrate, one outcome of that, is that you can use seemingly conflicting identities to demonstrate the same meaning. For example, you can use self to demonstrate the same thing as "not self". Or you can use "not self" to demonstrate precisely the same meaning as "self". You see how, right? That's because meanings are not nailed to some stone. Meanings are very fluid. Contemplate! ACTUALLY DEEPLY ENCOUNTER the meanings within your own field of awareness. Don't just talk about it. After you encounter your own meanings authentically, and by authentically I mean you are interested on your own, you're not doing it to follow someone else, you're not doing it to please some grand pappy in the sky or any other bogus reason. It means you don't follow formulas, and the result is a contemplation that is utterly alive. Then you will see that all meanings are mysterious, ordinary, a continuum, flow from one another, flow from one whole, don't flow from one whole, are the same as the absence of meaning, and are not the same as absence of meaning. When you actually encounter this, you won't be so quick and sure to say you know what Advaita means. Then you'll be like a real yogi, or if you're lucky, you'll be like me. This just shows your shallow understanding. Don't embarrass yourself like this. In Hinduism you'll encounter plenty of teachers and teachings that will tell you there is nothing bonded, thus nothing to free from bondage. Conversely, in Buddhism there are some truly retarded moronic teachers who teach things like women have to be reborn as men to be enlightened and so on. Buddhism, in other words, is not as "pure" as you think. It's a stinking pile of dog shit -- so don't fall in love with it. Hinduism is not as rotten as you think either. Your mind has highs and lows in it -- do not impute those into Hinduism and Buddhism in an ignorant manner. Buddhism produces some truly hard-headed and unenlightened individuals many times. Don't think Buddhism is the bee's knees. Buddhism is very useful, but if you fall in love with it, it is poison, like anything else. This is why religion is so dangerous. LOL. Hinduism is not straightforward in the way you think it is. In Hinduism one can die and not die at the same time. Buddhists hate that kind of thinking, because it's not logically parceled out. But good contemplatives recognize that phenomena can have aspects. For example, life has a death aspect. Death has a life aspect. So life is not entirely alive. Death is not entirely dead. And so on. This probably goes over your head though, seeing that you're not really a contemplative, but a bible thumper of the Buddhist variety. In Hinduism Absolute is not Absolute, because all the smart Hindus understand that Absolute is only said to be "absolute" relative to what's said to be "relative". There have been plenty of examples of sages who have followed doctrines that seemed less than perfect, and who have attained the blessed life. Let that be a lesson to you. I say -- enjoy your doctrine. It is good. But don't get hung up on it! Don't turn something that was meant to free you from fixations into a fixation.

Everything depends on what you read. Buddhism is a wide body of teachings. As such, it is non-uniform. There are some Buddhist teachings, even in the Pali canon, that can be said to present a "higher" kind of truth. It's not absolutely higher perhaps, but you wouldn't know it. It's implied that it is. For example, cessation is higher than samsaric living. Sure, later you can find teachings that show that nirvana is the same as samsara. But then go further again and again you can find teachings to contradict that as well, teachings with a very strong flavor of renunciation. Buddhism is wwwwwiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....... It contradicts itself all the time. There are Buddhist tantras that criticize every single Buddhist vehicle. Etc. So, I can only think of two reasons why you'd say what you do. 1. You don't think for yourself. You go for the bandwagons. 2. You have a very narrow learning in the field of Buddhism. And one more word of advice. I know Namdrol a bit. He's a very smart guy, but he's very very very biased. He's not a free thinker. He pretty much nailed the Buddhist doctrine, but he is enslaved by it. In other words, it's not that Namdrol mastered Buddhist teachings, but the Buddhist teachings have mastered him. I bet he would take it as a complement, but it's not meant to be one. It's more of a warning. Namdrol is a good resource, but don't take what he says as the golden truth. Think for yourself. I agree with Namdrol 99.9% of the time, but I wouldn't suggest to anyone that people try to literally copy his thoughts or my own. We all need to think for ourselves. If you blindly copy the best thoughts and views known to men, the result is garbage. A foolish view that you've understood on your own and came to via your own devices is more precious and more authentic than blindly copied wisdom of others, even if it's a "higher" wisdom.

How can you distinguish psychic from non-psychic phenomena?

Listen to this. When a sick person takes his first pill, he's already thinking how good it will be to NOT be taking the pill. In fact, when you take a pill, you take it so that you don't have to take it later on. You don't want the pill to become a permanent fixture of your life-style. That's what it means for something to be an antidote. You take it out of need, and not because you adore it or love it. Buddhist teachings are indeed antidotes. But people want to become Buddhists forever and they certainly DO NOT look forward to the day when they can safely stop being Buddhists. Or alternatively, they do look forward to that day, but the envisage this day to be magnificent, like being hit with a lightning bolt, amazing, full of rainbows, and devas and amazing Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and such day never comes. Or worse, it does come. In either case, Buddhist become married to their anti-dotes and become morons, almost all of them. It is hopeless. They become proud of the pills they take. They go around proclaiming how their pill is so wonderful, everyone should take it. They don't look forward to stopping the pill consumption. Many Buddhists even want to be reborn into a Universe where these pills are everywhere so they can just keep taking these pills without interruption. I am looking at you Pure Landers.

What was it called at the time? Except no Buddhist I know of gives a good definition of existence, never mind gives a commonly accepted one! Before you refute something, it is good to define it. I don't see Nagarjuna spending effort to define any of the terms he refutes. He assumes we all know what he's talking about. His assumption is correct FOR MORONS. But for contemplators it's a bad assumption, because contemplators don't have common definitions of anything. So if Nagarjuna is addressing idiots, that's all good. But if he's talking to Bodhisattvas, he's an idiot. All the Bodhisattvas laugh at Nagarjuna. Well said! Buddhists are way too serious. This is both good and bad. The good thing is that Buddhist take time to investigate Buddhism and to meditate, etc. That's good. The bad is that the Buddhist then get stuck in the result of their study and can't move beyond it.

Well the only possibility for Buddha's misunderstanding would be is if he were born a fallible human being like every other human being. Another possibility is that fallibility is a fundamental and ineliminable aspect of cognition. So, you're right, it's impossible! What was I thinking?

What does it mean "to exist"? And who is this "them"? For them? Who is this them? Is it me? Cause certainly what you said is not true for me. I really don't like it when people don't allow their conversation partners to speak for themselves. I've seen some debates like this play out before. What I've seen is that the Advaita guy is not allowed to speak one's mind. They try to say that they don't agree with how the Buddhist is describing their view, but the Buddhist will not listen, but instead the Buddhist will say, "Bah, I know how you think. This is how you think. I know Vedanta better than you, so I know what Vedanta says." It just does not occur to these bafoons that perhaps Buddha has misunderstood Vedanta! Oh no! THE HOLY PROPHET OF BUDDHISM MIGHT HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, or might have made an observation that IS LESS THAN ABSOLUTELY TRUE, no, no no no no .... we cannot allow that thought to happen! Buddha was a moron and he wasn't even slightly enlightened. He was a hypocrite of the highest order. He did everything he criticized others doing. Buddhists have the highest levels of intellectual arrogance out of any sort of people. They'll bow and bow and prostrate 100000 times and say sweet things, and give donations and so on. But in their minds Buddhist have the absolute conviction they have it all nailed down. They got it all figured out. They know every religion and they understand every linguistic construct and they are the undisputed champion of all contemplatives. How do you know it's not the same? What does it mean for things to be empty? Does it imply non-existence? When someone says that Brahman exists, what is implied? Brahman can be the same as emptiness. This is language we're talking about. It's flexible and fluid. In fact, language is a living organism. Even if at one point Brahman wasn't used to mean the empty nature of phenomena, how can we be certain it's not used that way NOW? Furthermore, how can we be sure that the meaning of "to be empty" hasn't changed in the past 2000 years? Isn't everything inconstant? How can language retain precisely the same meaning? ANY CONTEMPLATOR worth his salt can see this right away. ONLY MORONS assert they know what it is, how it is, what it means, what it doesn't mean, they know it all. Contemplators don't know for sure what they know and what they don't know, because they actually EXAMINED the meaning of their knowledge in person, in real life, not just came to a Dharma talk, but actually thought for themselves, critically, not just jumped on some bandwagon.

--- I think that it's obvious Buddhism is unique in some sense. It has its own toolbox and it has a different way of talking about things, and it's a valuable addition to our life here on Earth. However, to imply that Buddhism is utterly unique, that Buddhism is categorically different from every other tradition, that goes too far in my book. To be so damned certain about it just smacks of ignorance. To a non-contemplative everything is obvious. Once you contemplate anything, anything whatsoever, it stops being obvious. The difference between self and no-self seems obvious at first. But once you contemplate what does "self" mean? How is it different from "no-self" or, more correctly translated, "not self" (!! See Thanissaro Bhikhu's note on this here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors.../notself2.html), you see their difference, at best, is a mental construct of inconstant nature, baseless, empty! How can anyone be so damn sure that self is different from not-self? I understand if self and not-self had some essence backing them up, no one would ever confuse those two concepts. But since concepts are empty, how can one be so damn sure they are always, eternally, clearly separate and their meanings are universally well understood? That's idiocy of the highest order. This is what happens when you get a moron into Buddhism. The moron takes everything uncritically and starts meditating like crazy, without asking any questions. Everything is so obvious. You know what Buddha is. You know what cessation is. You know what the stages of enlightenment are. It's obvious!!! JUST MEDITATE MEDITATE MEDIATE. Nonsense! Garbage! You'll never be enlightened that way. You'll just entrench yourself into your obstinate mindset even harder with meditation. Meditation just confirms beliefs when the meditator is a non-critical person. For example, if you're a hard-core physicalist and you meditate for 10 hours, you'll just walk away even more convinced than ever than everything is made of matter. That's why Buddhists always say that THE VIEW is so important. Without the view, meditation just entrenches you in your current view. But to get THE VIEW you cannot just go by what you are told. You have to be critical. That's the only way to arrive at the view in an authentic manner that actually means something in your life. I love many Buddhist teachings and I respect many Buddhists, but I am damned glad I am not a Buddhist myself. No way, no how. I will never sign up on any bandwagon as long as I live.

This is load of crap. What is this "generally accepted" crap? This "generally accepted" crap comes from US! From me and you. And if we all decide to change our mind, then what used to be "generally accepted" is not generally accepted anymore. In other words, what is or is not generally accepted is a moving target, and to refer to it with such smugness and self-assuredness is insane, especially for a Buddhist! You'd think of all people Buddhists would appreciate the transitory nature of meanings, conventions and so on, and would be more open to exploration of alternative meanings. Nope. No cigar. Buddhists are as stubborn and as inane as Wahhabi Muslims. It's a damn blessing that Buddhists tend to be peaceful, because if Buddhists were not peaceful, their inane stubbornness would cause a war every time. To say that "atman" just means "self" is useless. The question is what does the "self" mean then? Etc. The problem is that Buddhist thinkers are non-charitable to others, and the same in reverse. Buddhists really crave separate identity. Any hint that their system is not unique drives them insane. I've seen this in practice in real life. It's a deep personal issue. Since Buddhists are so damned biased, discussing the issue is pretty much a waste of time. Do you even understand what it means to be transcendent? If we say "self is transcendent" how is that different from "self is empty"? I say -- no different! To be transcendent means to be empty in my mind. Does being transcendent imply something like "standing apart from" or "standing outside of"? Nope. It doesn't imply that at all. In fact, the meaning of "transcendence" is precisely absence of ordinary/stable meaning. I really detest talking to dyed in the wool Buddhist. Every time I get a feeling I am talking to a moron.

I want a pony. Doesn't anyone care?

Is this a double post? I seem to remember the same theme appearing elsewhere. In any case... What is or is not a trap depends on a lot of factors. For example, let's say you are going to the music store. Is music store a trap? Nope. But if you fell into an open manhole on you way to the music store, you'd be trapped. Being trapped signifies being unable to reach your destination. This is important. Because there can be no talk of traps without some sense of destination, or some kind of desired state of things. So let's say you arrive at the music store. Great! Let's say you are happy and you're ready to leave, but suddenly you find the doors have closed and you cannot get out. Is it a trap? NOW it is a trap. It's a trap now because you have a new destination, and the store keeps you from reaching it. So at one point, not being able to get to the music store is to be trapped. At other point, not being able to exit from it is also a trap. But neither the manhole nor the music store are inherently traps in and of themselves. If you want to do something inside the manhole, it's not a trap to end up in the manhole. You need to refine your understanding in contemplation. Don't just jump to conclusions. Examine matters.

Yes, but what does it mean "to be made into an ontological essence?" Arguably, it means nothing. Arguably it means just what emptiness means in the Buddhist sense. Buddhism is good at showing that there is no such thing as a stable identity, but then it behaves with regard to other doctrines as if their definitions are very well defined and understood. Truth is, we don't know what we mean. Ask any person on the street, "What does the word IS mean?" I bet no one knows. Even philosophers will stumble. Why? This is because language comes from a deep mysterious place. We use it intuitively, only half-understanding what it is we mean. To have respect for the fluidity and for the non-uniformness of language is a good thing. Non-uniformness means that what Buddhists mean by atman, and what Advaitans mean by atman doesn't have to be the same thing. Buddhists might be assailing the straw man. Or not. I remain open. What matters is how hearing this or that doctrine affects your condition. That's where compassion comes in.

I wouldn't be so sure. Again... this is a matter of taste. It's not something you should so freely assert, unless you use the rainbow tongue to assert it, then it's OK to assert it as much as you like. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn....8.01.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn....8.03.than.html

This is a matter of taste. I wouldn't stake my life on this assertion.

I don't approve of your disapproval. I also don't approve of your nose. Get a nose job.

You didn't answer the question. The question was, how is the person at step six like when you take that person out for a beer. What cologne do they wear? Do they like Nike or Rebook? Do they make more than 100k a year? What size is their dick? Etc... Those are the things people want to know.