Apech

Mouni Sadhu ... now you're talking ... the very first and I mean absolutely the first when I was 15/6 book I read on meditation was his book called concentration ... he had an exercise of watching the second hand of a clock for ten minutes ... which was the first kind fo meditation I did. Boring as hell ...

I think I found it via Crowley as I certainly knew about the claim that he was Levi reincarnated. Not sure that book is dull ... but maybe ... but I would say it was my first introduction to something that seemed to actually work.

Most!

is that a proper word?

Yes.

No.

The first ritual magic I ever performed way from Eliphas Levi an invocation of the elementals ... to my amazement it worked.

What about static charge/batteries? Energy doesn't have to be kinetic it can be potential.

the governing and conception vessel are storage also according to Dr. Yang.

"that there could be some kind of juice in the stomach which can hold electrical charge." have you looked at chyle?

Why does the apple fall to the ground then?

It was a sausage joke ... get over it.

I like that ... sausage fest ... excellent ... don't apologise for it.

Ok ... I wrote sloppily.

he wrote a book called Dzogchen and Zen ... I doubt that he just said 'its absolute crap'.

Don't know.

I can't remember.

Hi Stefos I will attempt to answer your points .... Not sure what you mean by 'Je Tsongkapa vs. Sakya Pandita' they weren't contemporaries ... however within the context of what you say I assume you are referring to their criticisms of other schools and teachers. This has to be understood, I think, in the following way. At periods of Tibetan history the dharma declined in authenticity ... it was always a broad church in that it encompassed many schools and practices so the idea that there were different sects and so on was not the problem. The problem was that certain practices deviated from what could be termed Buddhism. I think the core definition for this would be the Four Seals (that compounded phenomena are impermanent, that self-hood is a the cause of suffering, that phenomena are empty and the nirvana is perfect peace) ... if teaching does not uphold these it cannot be said to be Buddhist. Also certain practices tended to abandon the path and thus were not effective in producing liberation. Great teachers like Sakya Pandita during their lifetimes because of their great skill in teaching dharma were able to correct the deviances that occurred in those times. In doing so they publicly criticised what were non-Buddhist philosophies and practices. I don't think you will find in anything he said a refutation of any level of genuine Buddhism. he upheld one and at the same time Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana and so on. I not aware of any Lama who would suggest that you should abandon any level of teachings but simply that you should understand that for instance the Hinayana is a limited form of dharma suitable for certain persons, it is dharma but perhaps not the whole picture. Similarly with the Mahayana six pefections and bodhicitta ... if you study or practice Dzogchen or Mahamudra then it is not a case of abandoning these views but building on them. Some statements about the non-conceptual ultimate reality might sound like they do refute more limited and more highly conceptualised understandings but to see it in this way would I think be misleading. What we can make of that is that Zen is a mind-only school and Dzogchen is Madhyamika ... so Dzogchen would refute the idea that Mind is ultimately real as it takes a different view. However this is about 'the view' that is the intellectual understanding which is developed to support practice. Clarity about the view is essential but is not the same thing as inner realisation. Reality is reality whatever philosophical view you take of it ... if it wasn't it would be reality would it. You may make that inference if you so choose. But I would say that it would be merely a conceptual distinction. Are you denying the possibility of liberation/awakening through Zen? He comes from the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Theravada is the only extant Hinayana school the others having died out. Tibetans claim to be Buddhists ... even where the transmission is via the Mahasiddhis why should we dispute this? I do not believe in or have any confidence in the modern secular fundamentalist Buddhist approach ... in the sense that I see dharma as the whole journey and not just the beginning. I think the idea that for instance Nagajuna is not really Buddhist because he taught non-dualism is bogus and discounts the possibility of genuine direct realisation. Is it?

The mods can change your screen name for you if you want.

Depends how much you spill.

the Buddha was the Buddha and you are not the Buddha ... I don't recall him ever saying you had to 'do it' by 36 or emulating him in that sense. Why the cut off at 45 ... you don't know how you will feel when you reach that age ... maybe you will become very wise and happy. Don't make these predictions they will come back to haunt you.

I discussed this with a Kagyu Rinpoche and he agreed .... they should have changed but did not heed the warning signs ...

It was a monarchy and by definition arbitrary and capricious. They were defending against a perceived threat to their way of life. I'm not excusing it ... just saying. Just being Buddhist is not some kind of special pill that makes you harmless ... the Tibetans were the same ... they stayed isolated for centuries to preserve a way of life based on feudal oppression and class.

They had waffles with maple syrup (just a guess).