Vajrahridaya

Yes I do... but no. I had this experience in 94'.

This is a translation that needs to be contextualized which ChNNR does in the same book. He say's this is referring to one's mind, that one's mind is Samantabhadra and it's not equated with a universal essence like Brahman. ChNNR does say this. He is not talking about God. People like you mis-contextualize and confuse people.

The unitary universalist club that says all paths lead to the same goal. No matter how variant your expressions of the same conclusions are, this is a basic primary view of... "all you people".

The Greeks were subjective idealists. Also realist meta-physicists. Basically equating everything with a primary causeless cause that everything is one with. Thus their non-duality was based upon a primary and singular non-substantial/substantial origin. I use paradox to show that their non-duality was based upon 2 equals one experience.

Jainism still takes up a view as transcendent and ultimate which everything is one with, thus it's not the viewless view of Buddhahood. The Buddha did debate the truth of this from a state of Buddhahood. The reality is one thing but multifaceted view is a Samsaric view. Thus liberation from Samsara is seemingly unnatural to you. Most just want a higher quality of Samsara or a higher and altered state of mind about it. This is what most paths teach.

Of course. If you had any idea of how I came to the Buddhadharma... you would not use this argument. I fought tooth and nail for my unitarian universalist perspective that all you people share. But the Buddha just didn't teach this and my experience doesn't reveal this. My experience of Rigpa transmission revealed the nature of the 6 realms both internally and externally, the ramifications of them and the 31 realms and all the different Jhanas and their meaning, how beings get stuck in them, the secret meaning of dependent origination and conceptual meaning. All experientially, not conceptually, or rather both instantaneously. He clarified them. He revealed more flexibility as well as the depth of their seeming bonding power with more lucidity than anyone before him in our era. I've explained so much here. If you didn't get it. I apologize for not being the one to teach you clear and open dharma. The Buddha wasn't a universalist unitarian in the sense of spiritual paths, only in the sense of Buddhahood understands the nature of all things universally. No, it's a break through. His revelation of inter-dependent origination/emptiness did not exist before him in this era. He didn't cling to a universal self existence that underlies everything. He did say these things in no uncertain terms.

The Buddha didn't teach the triple gem for no reason. It is a club, the club of the liberated, and not the club of the bound. So yes, one does take up membership. There are those humans of course that use religion as an excuse for all sorts of things in the political sense. This is just human conditioning.

The Taoist texts identify everything as one... the Tao. You just said so. Everything is the Tao. Buddhanature is just emptiness, as all sentient beings are inherently empty, there is mutability, or malleability, thus this is Buddhanature, the ability to transform, or instantly realize. This is not a paradigm of oneness. Though there is a unity of realization between all Buddhas. The subtle differences are very important, and it's more than merely conceptual. You quote is merely talking about the realization of emptiness, making all the born, fabricated and what not, unraveled. or not ultimate. Since everything is always not ultimate, then this realization is permanent, but Nirvana is not a source of everything. You don't really have training or pointing out instructions from realized teachers, because you don't like teachers. You lack humility. So you think these statements mean something other than they do. The next quote is also just talking about the dimension of realizing the empty nature of things, not a cosmic source of everything.

This is just people. None of this is really what the Buddha taught. He did teach a religion, or a system of analysis and methods for unraveling ones nature. All this other stuff is just what regular people use as an excuse for taking things over. People use politics, religion and all sorts of things as an excuse. That is not the fault of the many Buddhas and real Buddhists in the world.

I don't really care how non-conceptual one makes it, it's still attributed to being the reality behind the reality the creator of all things, the source of all things, the one behind the many. This type of subtle identity does not lead to liberation from Samsara. It's still a paradigm of oneness. This will not do. This merely leads to re-absorption.

A Sammasambuddha is defined as such due to having awareness of all the intelligences. Hearing and subtle hearing, feeling and subtle feeling... etc. I am aware of these studies and findings you've posted above. You make static generalizations of me that do not inherently exist outside of your limited perceptions of my words. :lol: :lol:

This text still attributes that Tao as a first cause so as a supreme substance beyond concepts. So, it's still just applying the neti-neti principle of not this and not that in a conceptual fashion, making the Tao still true and real, shinning from it's own side without cause. So, it's still not Buddhadharma.

Wow! What delusion...

Yes, that is clear in fact. Now relax and be nicer.

I've been a Brahma. Not Mahabrahma. There are many Brahmas. In one of my memories, I remember having immense power over a small universe and being completely lost in it and the idea that I had created it, and part of my waking up was to look around the cosmos and see endless Brahmas who were under the same powerful delusion as I. I don't know if I was that same Brahma as I generally only remember bits and pieces with utter clarity. Most likely, many of you within the span of eternal time were one type of god or another, but just don't remember it. It took me very intense practicing to come to the level of memory I do have. It didn't just happen from living a worldly life.

Loppon Namdrol is deeply experienced and deeply compassionate. He should be highly respected as he deserves deep respect for his clarity. He has been a student of ChNNR for a very long time and actually follows all of ChNNR's teachings, and lives next to the main Dzogchen center in Western Mass. called Tsegyalgar. He considers ChNNR his main teacher and has received many private teachings from him. He is far more qualified than any of us here to teach Dzogchen. I've met him in person and spent some time with him at Tsegyalgar while at a retreat there. He is a real deal.

I never go to bed early. I didn't get home until after 2am from work. I have my doubts. Because I've asked you before and you always answer in this cryptic fashion. Basically not answering. It should be understood intellectually first. Dzogchen is not different from the goal of Buddhism. If you think this, than you haven't understood Dzogchen. Ok. Now who is so self important and wrapped up in his opinion as reality? You're actually mostly a jerk who makes personal attacks. This is the first time I've ever seen you in 2 years post something of depth. I am actually partially impressed. It seems that you do know something about Dzogchen. Communicating the natural state is neither difficult nor not difficult. I express what I express without judging myself for the most part. I apologize sometimes because that seems necessary to help people relax about my experiential opinions. Only readers create confusion and controversy. There are lots here who have voiced their opinion on my writing that is contrary to yours. You are so self important that you think your opinion of my writing is definitive. There are plenty of people, who have the same opinions of ChNNR. Is this his fault? No. Of course I'm not comparing myself or my clarity with him, but just using him as a point. If even such a highly realized teacher confuses some people and has controversy around him, then even a little peon like me could have some too. Actually, generally speaking, the more highly realized the teacher and the more outspoken the teacher, like the Buddha for instance, the more confusion and controversy there will be around that person. The Buddha had tons of people who wanted to straight up kill him, talk about controversy and confusion. Like I said, your take on me is your issue, not mine. Get over yourself. Yes, but he didn't ask for a long and personal criticism of everyone else here. As if you were the end all be all. No I don't, and yes there are. But neither do you and your opinion is not definitive, so stop acting like it is. Talk about reactionary.

Maybe not these days. :lol:

Only if transcended and you actually get transmission and hold the "view". You don't know much about Guru Yoga. He said at the first retreat I attended to understand Nagarjuna. You surely haven't read any of his books. Nor have you read his Precious Vase. Wow... you still think these are concepts? Only because I rub against your density. Which you still think exists. Relaxing is a process. Have you experienced everything as Rainbow light directly? Have you felt your body dying to that relaxation? From your own fingers type the story of themselves. Have you seen your spine turn electric blue yet? Oh... we are all one substance now? Your concepts convey your experience. That's true.

You asked and I explored an expression in response and I'm glad it rang a bell or two. It's nice to know when time is not wasted. :lol: Yes... I do agree. Ralis has this idea that understanding and wisdom are somehow different. Yes, this is why I took birth into a substantialist non-dual view and dove into it before I came to Buddhadharma. The path I practiced basically summarized all other paths outside of Buddhadharma, as most paths are monistic in some way or another. Anyway... this allowed me a sense of deep comparison when I intuited the goal as explained through text and transmission in "oneness" theory as incomplete and I moved on to Buddhism for clarity. There are other universes at work that you will be open to as you will have transcended there being one universe, so you will just be a Buddha somewhere else. Not necesarily a physical body as you can progress in fine material body too in higher realms. Read... 31 planes of existence. I mean.. really read it and try to understand it. All the best!

I agree!

Yes! There is not a single obstacle or obscuration Rigpa speaking except ma-rigpa of course, which self liberates in Rigpa if directly intuited in transmission.

Yes, I do agree. It's really a pervasive habit of Samsarin's to begin with, and those on the path just deepen it or experience the subtle versions of this craving for supreme existence, or an ultimate reality of ourself and most just take up this exalted experience as a true and self sustained self of all. I certainly used to.

Wow. someone edited my last comment under my own name. I said something like. Yes, I remember him, he is funny! :lol: Though in Mahayana/Vajrayana we set up the conditions for expression through the practice of transformation while de-conditioning from the inappropriate for enlightened display. We don't take refuge in the non-conceptual, nor do we take refuge in the conceptual either.