Apech

Someone once called me a cult ... at least I think that's what they said.

What's going on here? It's the 'WELCOME' section folks! How about a welcoming atmosphere????

Ah so you meant elementals and spiritual masters? I misread that. Thanks. It is my understanding that elementals inhabit the element they are linked to e.g. salamanders in the element fire and so on. They are spiritual entities which 'embody' sentience within that element. Do you agree with this?

Hi Jeff, Could you explain why you have grouped elementals with dead spiritual practitioners? I'm a bit confused by this.

The word ‘divine’ comes from a PIE root ‘dyeu’ which means something like ‘that which shines’. Other words related are Deus for god, Deva and by inversion Devil – also Jove and Zeus are etymologically related. ‘That which shines’ refers to celestial lights, sun + moon etc. And so ‘heavenly’. There is also the term ‘divine’ which means to exercise calirvoyant powers or be a soothsayer/oracle. Grace is that which falls from heaven – evenly and without effort – a manifestation of divine power in the world. From us there might be effort or work to do to contact divine power(s) but from their side it is all grace – effortless, easeful and enlightening.

TM (and everyone), I fully understand why you felt you wanted to exit this place but I hope you will reconsider it, if for no other reason than the number of people who value your contributions. We were on the mod team together in the old days so I know the input you have made to this place from before I even joined I think. One thing DBs relies on is a variety of views, opinions and understandings (as well as systems and traditions) which are expressed here. This is what makes it such a rich and lively place. I always remember Sean’s words to me when I first joined the mod team that it was not about silencing, banning or policing threads - it was about making DBs an enjoyable and great place for people to hang out and discuss what interests them. Apart from the technical side of things (which I never really mastered ) this is what the staff side is really all about. Obviously they are all volunteers and the expectation that they do this perfectly and all the time is a unrealistic - and i think we can say that generally those who take up this arduous and unrewarding task do a brilliant job. The core rule for me in maintaining a healthy and civil conversation on here is the original ‘no insult’ policy - because obviously one insult leads to another and then a flame war. It’s not about who is right or wrong or who swears to worst but about stopping this effect in its tracks when it starts to derail threads and topics. Some insults are overt and some are more in the realm of the passive aggressive, demeaning or discounting put-downs. Now clearly when the conversation gets heated there can be some barbed comments especially it seems when discussing Mr. Trump. Some may be let go because it is not a derail and its in the Pit/Off Topic area. This then for the moderators is quite a nuanced thing to moderate. The key principle being is it or is it not ad hominem. I can’t see for the life of me how calling someone ‘butthurt’ can be anything else but ad hominem - no matter how you understanding the meaning of that expression. It is just saying ‘you don’t have a valid point of view just hurt feelings’ - and therefore discounting the ‘other’. So I think your report was fully justified - although the decision of the mods how to respond is up to them collectively and objectively. I think reporting twice is ok also - but the release of your confidential report text is a big mistake and a kind of breach of etiquette if nothing else.

https://www.livescience.com/20799-ancient-statue-reveals-prince-buddha.html#undefined.uxfs

Ok. I am in the middle of a process of going through some of the history of early Buddhism and so on and have a few ideas to put out here which I should really provide proper evidence for - but being lazy and also still in the process I'd prefer to just say broadly what I'm thinking in the hope that I'll get a few replies. The Buddhism that came West in 19th and 20th centuries was dominated by a brand of rational and dualist thinking. In fact it was presented to the Western mind in a way that responded to Western rationalism - and even some schools of practice were made up for this very reason e.g. Goenka's vipassana. What backed this up was the following narrative. Buddha's 'original' teachings (sparse, scholastic, mono - as represented by a certain reading of the Pali Canon sutras) Early Buddhism = wandering ascetic monks in the forest Monastic Buddhism - supported by Ashoka and then various kings, becomes major religion Mahayana formed through schism - Buddhism splits North/South and travels to China etc. Mahayana brings in 'contamination' of Hindu ideas about self = buddha-nature etc., Greek philosophy and so on. Vajrayana arises through more contamination from Kaula Tantric practices and at the same time Buddhism declines in India until it eventually dies out. This kind of historical narrative appears to be supported by vajrayana's own division of dharma into Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana - as a temporal series. I would suggest an alternative narrative which is broadly as follows: Buddhas original teaching - very broad 84,000 dharmas - every style of teaching that was to follow - completely open reflecting the needs of his various students and audiences. Early Buddhism - small sanghas living and worshipping in close relation to laity but with a scholarly sub-set who preserved the vinaya rules for monks. Monastic sangha grew as support from laity in the form of alms was replaced by royal land grants which allowed monasteries to produce their own food and accumulate wealth. As this happened an ideal of wandering Forest monks grew up but was not widely practiced. No schism for Mahayana which was always present as a style of practice - at first a minority and then growing in popularity until the majority. All schisms in Buddhism were around the vinaya and not about 'emptiness', the stress on compassionate activity, or the rate of travel to awakening. The reason for the different development North /South was just geographic isolation. The vajrayana Mahasiddhis were present from the beginning but again a very small minority but in the period 600 - 1200 AD this style of practice grew in popularity because of the circumstances of the times. (A&P has pointed out this is misleading - what I meant was that some kind of approach equivalent to them was around from the beginning - i'll discuss it later when I get a chance) There were outside philosophical and cultural influences - Greek philosophy, reformed Hinduism, Chinese 'religions' - and these played a part in some of the way things developed which need to be taken into account. Any views on this broad picture???

This is the best book to read: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahayana-Buddhism-Doctrinal-Foundations-Religious/dp/0415356539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520933771&sr=8-1&keywords=mahayana+williams it gives an account of the development of Far Eastern, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism and talks about the Zen stress on immediacy and so on at some length. It's such a vast subject that I am working my way through it slowly. I think Zen is to understood as a particular development of Yogacara Buddhism where the relationship between the 'here/now' phenomenal and the presence of Buddha-mind are expressed through the 'natural' and so on. This is just my way of putting it - so probably not that exact

I think the argument is that splits in the Sangha were over Vinaya rules and that given that the Chinese monk who visited India found that monks of the same order practiced Hinayana style and Mahayana style in the same monastery and so the distinction was not a distinction centred on a sect but on a style or attitude to practice. I think the crux of the difference is how you practice. If you mainly 'listen' to the text as a 'shravaka' = 'hearer' then you are expecting that listening, learning, thinking about, meditating on the meaning and so on will bring you to arhatship. If on the other hand you receive the text as a transmission, sound, image, state of consciousness and so on - learn it, repeat it, visualize it, 'embody' it then that is Mahayana style. Something like that anyway

I've quickly read a very small part of Indian Buddhism by Warder and it seems to me it is a very scholarly work - but one that reflects the current understanding by academics when he was writing (originally in 1970's). The problem with all of this is that research continually shifts opinion (for instance about the origin of the Mahayana - where he stresses 'schism' among the 18 schools as the origin) and academics make assumptions from outside Dharma (even tho' some of them are Buddhists) which turn out to be either false or perhaps only partly true. I think for westerners interested in Buddhism it is important to read a wide range of this kind of material and to get a wide appreciation of this subject. Of course this has only a secondary purpose to actual practice. I don't think it is a good idea to look for some static entity which is Buddhism as it can be seen from history that while the dharma may remain true to core principles the way it develops in different cultures (for instance Zen in japan) has distinct themes and emphasis. The most important factor for the individual is which tradition you have a connection to and has the potential for you, for liberation.

I think there are variant accounts of the role and purpose of the second Buddhist Council - I have no idea which is correct. But the book I am using - Lamotte - seems to follow the Pali version.

Nothing presumably. The Solberg govt. is a centre-right coalition - also we have Theresa May in the UK - the second conservative PM after Thatcher - Angela Merkel in Germany centre - right also for whom 'women make the difference '- https://www.ft.com/content/e6346682-212d-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80 Odd that the right is driving actual women in power while the left talks 'equality'. Why would this be?

He's critiquing a misconception which is often repeated by western authors - he was showing that it was a logical fallacy as confirmed by the Tibetan master.

from : Mahayana - by Williams

Q. Why does tantra use 'transgressive' activities as subject matter - i.e. sex, impure food and burial grounds - and even more why did the mahasiddhas deliberately break social taboos as part of their practice???? Notes: The Ancient Indian attitude to sex is not the Judeo-Christian one. It is not understood as a 'sin' or inherently evil in someway - but more that it is a loss - a loss of energy - and the adept who gives in to this is allowing their energy to run down. Purity of diet was part of the Brahmin approach to spiritual purity - this was not about dietary fads and so on - but about what it was ok to eat before or as part of a sacred ritual act. Burial grounds were thought of as inherently impure and scary places inhabited by negative spiritual entities and so on - to live there or perform spiritual acts there was normally thought to be harmful.

If anyone is interested in studying the history of Buddhism in some reasonable depth - not for dharma itself but to give the right cultural and historical background for dharma teachings these three books are in my view essential. Obviously you must treat with some scepticism the views of academics but for accuracy and discussion which brings you to true understanding of the topic they are all exceptional. No light reading though so don't say I didn't warn you - they are all three quite 'heavy'. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahayana-Buddhism-Doctrinal-Foundations-Religious/dp/0415356539/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) Paperback – 11 Jul 2008 by Paul Williams https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theravada-Buddhism-History-Religious-Practices/dp/0415365090/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520262154&sr=1-1&keywords=Gombrich+theravada+social+history Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) Paperback – 19 Jun 2006 by Richard F. Gombrich https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Yoga-Tantra-Religions-Thirteenth-ebook/dp/B009019WG8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520262215&sr=1-1&keywords=origins+of+yoga+and+tantra+samuel The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century 1st Edition, Kindle Edition by Geoffrey Samuel

welcome.

Well he seems very popular with a lot of people. I went to a talk by him many years ago - he spoke in Tibetan and Italian and was translated by someone American which I am guessing was our friend Malcolm from Dharmawheel (looked simlar anyway). I just find Dzogchen extrordinarily abstract for a non-conceptual system. I think perhaps he conveys a rather misleading impression that Dzogchen is a way of leapfrogging Hinayana, Mahayana, Tantrayana and so on - and yet when you watch his introduction to Dzogchen vid on youtube he starts with the 4 Noble Truths. I think rather that Buddhadharma is like Mt. Meru - small at the bottom and big at the top and you can't jump off a mountain without climbing it first.

Have you ever received instructions from Norbu?

Read this book https://www.amazon.de/Foundations-Internal-Alchemy-Taoist-Practice/dp/0984308253

Can I just say that in all humility I fully agree that I am wonderful. Seriously thank you for kind comments. Seems that moderation is not for me anymore - but thanks to Dawei for the opportunity. Good luck and thanks to Karen.

Most of what is called MCO is not actually MCO but part of clearing the channels as per 'laying the foundations'. True MCO only occurs when the medicine or pill has been generated in the LDT and happens spontaneously - there are various models for this depending on the school of Nei Dan. Bringing down energy either through the central channel or just generally to wash over the body is not kundalini either in my view. To my understanding kundalini is specifically and technically the energy which is coiled up at the base of the spine - although closely associated with sexual energy et.c it is something more than breakthrough type exeriences of being flooded with energy. The issue is that what we term 'energy« is actually a sentient force which stores experiences - to exist as an individual with a conscious mind there has to be a way to prevent flooding and so energy + ancestral forms are stored and locked up in the base chakra. the release of this energy is specific and potentially traumatic (which is why it is kept stored up in the first place) there is an opportunity to gain wisdom and power - but also an opportunity to get screwed - which is why I referred to kundalini syndrome or psychosis above. It is true that 'all energy is energy`` and so on - but then a light bulb is emitting energy and so is a nuclear bomb. In any case what we are calling energy is not a neutral force like electricity it is sentient power which is why it is sometimes personified as Shakti.

Jimmy Carter

I don't disagree with it but as a quote in isolation it should not be taken to imply that there is no preliminary practice to strengthen and purify the subtle body. Indeed I would argue the whole of the ethical and bodhicitta stages are part of this. It is not about just letting everything flow with no prior cultivation which would be unwise.