9th

It depends on what you mean by "true". For example, you may have a dream in which you perceive yourself falling off a cliff, and it may feel "true", but when you wake up you regard it as "false". Then you may fall off a cliff while awake, and perceive it to be "true" then you hit the ground and die. In terms of sensory experience, it seems to be more about what you are feeling. For example, whether or not you regard your senses as being accurate indicators of "the true universe" or not, I challenge you to stick your hand into a fire and disbelieve that it hurts, and that you feel no pain whatsoever, and further that your body is not damaged by it. In contrast to ideas of what things are, and descriptions about how they work, the senses will provide a much more immediately energetic assessment of living experience - regardless of how "true" or "false" you may wish to describe it. Having an idea of power is one thing, and actually having power is quite another. The same goes for understanding, awareness, vision, etc.

Beer (2003: p. 102) relates how the symbolism of the khatvanga that entered esoteric Buddhism (particularly from Padmasambhava) was a direct borrowing from the Shaivite Kapalikas who frequented places of austerity such as charnel grounds and cross roads etcetera as a form of 'left-handed path' (Sanskrit: vamamarga) 'spiritual practice' (Sanskrit: sadhana): Dattatreya the avadhuta, to whom has been attributed the esteemed nondual medieval song, the Avadhuta Gita, was a sometime denizen of the charnel ground and a founding deity of the Aghor tradition according to Barrett (2008: p. 33):

reflections of eye wonder about what will be between the unseen

A disciple of Lao Lai Tzu while out gathering fuel, chanced to meet Confucius. On his return, he said, 'There is a man over there with a long body and short legs, round shoulders and drooping ears. He looks as though he were sorrowing over mankind. I know not who he can be.' 'It is Confucius!' cried Lao Lao Tzu. 'Bid him come hither.' When Confucius arrived, Lao Lai Tzu addressed him as follows: 'Ch'iu! Get rid of your dogmatism and your specious knowledge, and you will be really a superior man.' Confucius bowed and was about to retire, when suddenly his countenance chanced and he enquired, 'Shall I then be able to enter upon Tao?' 'The wounds of one generation being too much', answered Lao Lai Tzu, 'you would take to yourself the sorrows of all time. Are you not weary? Is your strength equal to the task? 'To employ goodness as a passport to influence through the gratification of others, is an everlasting shame. Yet this is the common way of all, to lure people by fame, to bind them by ties of gratification. 'Better than extolling Yao and cursing Chieh is oblivion of both, keeping one's praises to oneself. These things react injuriously on self; the agitation of movement results in deflection. 'The true Sage is a passive agent. If he succeeds, he simply feels that he was provided by no effort of his own with the energy necessary to success.' Prince Yüan of Sung dreamed one night that a man with dishevelled hair peeped through a side door and said, 'I have come from the waters of Tsai-lu. I am a marine messenger attached to the staff of the River God. A fisherman, named Yü Ch'ieh, has caught me.' When the prince awaked, he referred his dream to the soothsayers, who said, 'This is a divine tortoise'. 'Is there any fisherman', asked the prince, 'whose name is Yü Ch'ieh?' Being told there was, the prince gave orders for his appearance at court; and the next day Yü Ch'ieh had an audience. 'Fisherman', said the prince, 'what have you caught?' 'I have netted a white tortoise', replied the fisherman, 'five feet in semi-circumference'. 'Bring your tortoise', said the prince. But when it came, the prince could not make up his mind whether to kill it or keep it alive. Thus in doubt, he had recourse to divination, and received the following response: "Slay the tortoise for purposes of divination and good fortune will result." So the tortoise was despatched. After which, out of seventy-two omens taken, not a single one proved false. 'A divine tortoise', said Confucius, 'can appear to prince Yüan in a dream, yet it cannot escape the net of Yü Ch'ieh. Its wisdom can yield seventy-two faultless omens, yet it cannot escape the misery of being cut to pieces. Truly wisdom has its limits; spirituality, that which it cannot reach. 'In spite of the highest wisdom, there are countless snares to be avoided. If a fish has not to fear nets, there are always pelicans. Get rid of small wisdom, and great wisdom will shine upon you. Put away goodness and you will be naturally good. A child does not learn to speak because taught by professors of the art, but because it lives among people who can themselves speak.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum_Nye

Belief is always an interesting topic when it comes to so-called "spiritual" people, especially those who believe themselves to be "highly advanced" or "highly evolved" or "supremely immortal" or some such nonsense. The obscenely pervasive amount of sanctimonious righteousness and blatant hypocrisy makes them an easy target for manipulation by snake-oil salesmen, because they cant afford to discover just how duped and deluded they really are. Take note of such cautionary tales as they unfold.

Is space anywhere supported? Upon what does it rest? Like space, Mahamudra is dependant upon nothing; Relax and settle in the continuum of unalloyed purity, And, your bonds loosening, release is certain. Gazing intently into the empty sky, vision ceases; Likewise, when mind gazes into mind itself, The train of discursive and conceptual thought ends And supreme enlightenment is gained. Like the morning mist that dissolves into thin air, Going nowhere but ceasing to be, Waves of conceptualization, all the mind's creation, dissolve, When you behold your mind's true nature. Pure space has neither colour nor shape And it cannot be stained either black or white; So also, mind's essence is beyond both colour and shape And it cannot be sullied by black or white deeds. The darkness of a thousand aeons is powerless To dim the crystal clarity of the sun's heart; And likewise, aeons of samsara have no power To veil the clear light of the mind's essence. Although space has been designated "empty", In reality it is inexpressible; Although the nature of mind is called "clear light", Its every ascription is baseless verbal fiction. The mind's original nature is like space; It pervades and embraces all things under the sun. Be still and stay relaxed in genuine ease, Be quiet and let sound reverberate as an echo, Keep your mind silent and watch the ending of all worlds. The body is essentially empty like the stem of a reed, And the mind, like pure space, utterly transcends the world of thought: Relax into your intrinsic nature with neither abandon nor control - Mind with no objective is Mahamudra - And, with practice perfected, supreme enlightenment is gained. The clear light of Mahamudra cannot be revealed By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals. By harbouring rigid precepts the true samaya is impaired, But with cessation of mental activity all fixed notions subside; When the swell of the ocean is at one with its peaceful depths, When mind never strays from indeterminate, non-conceptual truth, The unbroken samaya is a lamp lit in spiritual darkness. Free of intellectual conceits, disavowing dogmatic principles, The truth of every school and scripture is revealed. Absorbed in Mahamudra, you are free from the prison of samsara; Poised in Mahamudra, guilt and negativity are consumed; And as master of Mahamudra you are the light of the Doctrine.

Is a color a belief? Is a sound a belief? Is a smell a belief? Is a taste a belief? Is a feeling a belief?

I suppose we cant really invoke Genghis Khan with much effect anymore, hmm? His body count was far, far higher than the wannabe-Aryan wannabe-Atlantean "brotherhood" (I guess there's a case for the Asura/Aesir connection, but not much else - and thats not really teutonic to begin with. Also, its been quite a while since Persia and India were the same proto-indo-nation). What about SATAN? Does that carry any weight around here? SATAN SATAN SATAN SATAN ... Anything? Im trying to get a reaction out of people, I need to know what is going to really push their buttons... wind them up... that sort of thing. The Nazi thing is so tired, so rote, so predictable. But then again, its tried and true. You see, I like to watch all the little monkeys dance around to the tunes I play. Im really learning a lot here.

seven birds shaking tree, eleven snakes boiled for potion in the black for the black list with five coins dropped. If six braids wind up for double-helix triple knot, eight maids milk endless herd of cows.

best wishes to everyone, see you all next time around http://youtu.be/-KMpZaEF6g0

I would urge you to consider the ramifications of all your motivations, including those of avoidance. But it is your choice, as always.

"The difference between knowledge and understanding becomes clear when we realize that knowledge may be the function of one center. Understanding, however, is the function of three centers. Thus the thinking apparatus may know something. But understanding appears only when a man feels and senses what is connected with it. "We have spoken earlier about mechanicalness. A man cannot say that he understands the idea of mechanicalness if he only knows about it with his mind. He must feel it with his whole mass, with his whole being; then he will understand it. "In the sphere of practical activity people know very well the difference between mere knowledge and understanding. They realize that to know and to know how to do are two different things, and that knowing how to do is not created by knowledge alone. But outside the sphere of practical activity people do not clearly understand what 'understanding' means. "As a rule, when people realize that they do not understand a thing they try to find a name for what they do not 'understand,' and when they find a name they say they 'understand.' But to 'find a name' does not mean to 'understand.' Unfortunately, people are usually satisfied with names. A man who knows a great many names, that is, a great many words, is deemed to understand a great deal—again excepting, of course, any sphere of practical activity wherein his ignorance very soon becomes evident.

"There are," he said, "two lines along which man's development proceeds, the line of knowledge and the line of being. In right evolution the line of knowledge and the line of being develop simultaneously, parallel to, and helping one another. But if the line of knowledge gets too far ahead of the line of being, or if the line of being gets ahead of the line of knowledge, man's development goes wrong, and sooner or later it must come to a standstill. "People understand what 'knowledge' means. And they understand the possibility of different levels of knowledge. They understand that knowledge may be lesser or greater, that is to say, of one quality or of another quality. But they do not understand this in relation to 'being.' 'Being,' for them, means simply 'existence' to which is opposed just 'non-existence.' They do not understand that being or existence may be of very different levels and categories. Take for instance the being of a mineral and of a plant. It is a different being. The being of a plant and of an animal is again a different being. The being of an animal and of a man is a different being. But the being of two people can differ from one another more than the being of a mineral and of an animal. This is exactly what people do not understand. And they do not understand that knowledge depends on being. Not only do they not understand this latter but they definitely do not wish to understand it. And especially in Western culture it is considered that a man may possess great knowledge, for example he may be an able scientist, make discoveries, advance science, and at the same time he may be, and has the right to be, a petty, egoistic, caviling, mean, envious, vain, naive, and absentminded man. It seems to be considered here that a professor must always forget his umbrella everywhere. "And yet it is his being. And people think that his knowledge does not depend on his being. People of Western culture put great value on the level of a man's knowledge but they do not value the level of a man's being and are not ashamed of the low level of their own being. They do not even understand what it means. And they do not understand that a man's knowledge depends on the level of his being. "If knowledge gets far ahead of being, it becomes theoretical and abstract and inapplicable to life, or actually harmful, because instead of serving life and helping people the better to struggle with the difficulties they meet, it begins to complicate man's life, brings new difficulties into it, new troubles and calamities which were not there before. "The reason for this is that knowledge which is not in accordance with being cannot be large enough for, or sufficiently suited to, man's real needs. It will always be a knowledge of one thing together with ignorance of another thing; a knowledge of the detail without a knowledge of the whole; a knowledge of the form without a knowledge of the essence. "Such preponderance of knowledge over being is observed in present-day culture. The idea of the value and importance of the level of being is completely forgotten. And it is forgotten that the level of knowledge is determined by the level of being. Actually at a given level of being the possibilities of knowledge are limited and finite. Within the limits of a given being the quality of knowledge cannot be changed, and the accumulation of information of one and the same nature, within already known limits, alone is possible. A change in the nature of knowledge is possible only with a change in the nature of being. "Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to be far removed from either. At the same time the relation of knowledge to being does not change with a mere growth of knowledge. It changes only when being grows simultaneously with knowledge. In other words, understanding grows only with the growth of being. "In ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish understanding from knowledge. They think that greater understanding depends on greater knowledge. Therefore they accumulate knowledge, or that which they call knowledge, but they do not know how to accumulate understanding and do not bother about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlHRSpFGtQk

To your satisfaction? No.

Some of you may find this interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojuL6OCvo2A

The impulse to ascribe "heresy" is derived from the same source of such ideology. It is a human problem which is not limited to any particular religion or tradition. The supposed realization of institutional superiority has nothing to do with real practice... but that will only become clear if you are able to understand that Guatama himself did not teach "Buddhism". In that regard, the institutionalized idea of "going against Buddhism" becomes obvious in its stark irony.

And in the same way, you can say that every wisdom tradition and religion across the globe has great similarity to each other because it has borrowed heavily from prehistoric shamanism.

Debates regarding "heresy" and the "one true god" and all of that are unrelated to actual practice as discussed in this thread. If that is how you wish to spend your time and energy, it is certainly your choice. In terms of vipassana, I urge you to discover why you are so interested in such classifications.