Vajrahridaya

What makes the realization different? Recognition of the selfless flow? Or not?

I read that... Some time ago in fact. I haven't studied him in depth. I've only seen Down the Rabbit Hole and Further Down the Rabbit Hole which puts certain findings into perspective. Bohm is also a quantum physicist that I find has theories that give validity to the Buddhas findings of relativity basically dependent origination is a theory of relativity. It's pretty interesting how Einstein proves how subjective experience is. Oh it's quite different from New Ager theory. But your free to have your subjective ideas. I just merely reveal the validity of the Buddhas teachings to me experientially. The Buddhas teachings you don't seem to have much knowledge of so you wouldn't understand how objective he was about experience.

='Pietro' date=' Vajrahridaya, if you are going to take just one thing out of my message I would like you to take this: When you train yourself as a scientist (but also as an archeologists, and an anthropologist, I know this because my mediatition teacher is an an archeologist, and he corrects me when I fail on this), you train yourself to doubt, and ask unconfortable questions. In particular you eventually realise that it is not enough to experience something to prove its existance. Let me repeat it: experiencing something does not prove its existance. I've done that whole heartedly. That's why I don't believe any experience to be the absolute Truth, but merely a revelation of dependent origination. I could enter into more details, but I would water down this message. I've already understood this message and have done lots of practice of it. You have no idea. Which is fine. so unless I believe what you believe I do not know the truth. It all originates dependently. But if you think this is the only life and you've only verified that level of understanding and cannot see directly that this makes everything kind of more random and chaotic, and without reason. Than that's your prerogative. But to me... yes. I believe what the Buddha believes as I've experienced the truth of that enough. We do create our own truth and our own world conditioned by our perception of experiences, conditioned by our experiences, add infinitum. Dependent origination. SO we reached the point that you believe something because you have experienced. ANd you will not accept anybody else critcism, because they had not have this experience. And then since you believe the experience are the ultimate proof or reality, you consider that what you experienced is real. I only consider experiences as sign posts and it's corroborated with reference to various current discoveries. My past life references has validity in this life. My experiences of other realms as well. It's really on and on and I only prove it to myself. You can criticize, that's fine, but you are doing so from a limited vantage point as you have no idea the depth of experiential reference I have for my words. How is this different from what any evangelical Christian tells me, or what any person under the effect of an allucinogenic drug experiences? It's corroborated by enlightened beings, those that have put lots of hard time towards meditation and contemplation without worldly distraction. I find much of what Evangelical's say is based upon blind faith and the intensity of that faith originates the experience. Dependent origination. Many of my experiences are spoken about in every mystic branch of all spiritual traditions, it's just that I interpret them through the criticism of the Buddha, so I don't take them up as ultimate reality, just sign posts. As emptiness is not an experience it's the ultimate nature of experience or the quality of all experiences pointing to dependent origination, so it's an intuitive interpretation of experiencing of any sort. Still one can see directly the realms the Buddha speaks about, heaven realms, the 6 realms and the 31 planes and how they all link together and how the flow of all those states reflect meditation states from form to formless and from hell realms to heaven to formless realms.. how this is the macrocosm of my microcosm, but all inherently empty of intrinsic existence. Or I might simply not believe that experience is the ultimate proof of reality. There is no ultimate reality in Buddhism, merely co-dependent-arising/emptiness. There is no crutch to say, this is the final support of all things, like they say in Vedanta. It's just a selfless flow, but there are multiple dimensions of experience. We are not all merely physical. Either you believe that consciousness is a product of brain or that brain is the product of consciousness. If consciousness was merely the waste factor of reacting chemicals in the brain. That would pretty much be Nihilism in a nutshell. Hallucinations are different from meditative experiences, very much so. Brain is a product of consciousnesses particles of desire coagulated into a vessel for 3 dimensional expression. This is the type of talk that utilizes imagination. leaving aside the term "lift" which is charged (it means that we are unworthy, or generally less valid), you are saying something. You had some experiences, and those experiences are validated by a community of people. So you see, also you do not really believe that experience by itself is the ultimate test. No, I do not... It's validated by the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. Hmm, "I believe the language of the Buddha" does not really mean much: You believe a statement in a language. You don't believe the language. The language as in a metaphor for the meaning of the words within the paradigm of that interpretation of cosmos. Stop being so linear and literal. See what I mean, or my intentions in the words. But your general statement sounds like: I will be with my friends Buddhas that understand me, and you will be with all the other people. Yeah, taht is fine, except that I know enlightened being with which I have no problems to discuss with. I don't know what you will be with. I can just speak for myself. Why is it that if we are discussing, and I fail to convince you, and you fail to convince me. My failure to be convinced is due to my attachment to my view, while your failure to be convinced is due to your enlightened experience, and you being part of an enlightened group of people? Because for me that's true, from my perspective based upon the limits or freedom of my experiencings. What are you trying to convince me of? I'm just talking my truth and people are calling me a failure from their limited perspective, when other people have an entirely different experience of my words. Your perspective originates dependent upon your view, based upon your interpretations of your experience, and so on and so forth, and is not objective. Great, invite her to join the discussion! I am always happy to discuss with collegues. I tend to be as blunt, direct and unforgiving in the academic field as I am here. But as a professor she is probably used to the academic dialectic so she will not leave any openings in her discourse. I am sure we all can learn a lot from this. If she is too busy to participate (most professors usually are), maybe she can still read our exchange and then comment to you. LOL!! I don't feel inspired to do so. Nothing really exciting seems to be going on here between us.

We are the nature, there is no nature apart from all that is going on and on. Nature is just motion and motion has the impersonal intention of merely passing through space, neither bad nor good. What's the cause of deciding? If one identifies with the flow as I and mine, there is going to be confining and limitation, desire of what we want and not want to think. I think that condition for enlightenment is merely the recognition of interconnectivity without end, without center, and that's an illuminating experience where one see's past the personal conditions. This happens through influence from other buddhas in whatever capacity of dimension, through reading, through hearing, seeing. Then when that experience is recognized the unfolding is automatic depending upon the effort, but what is the condition to apply effort? It all leads to a question and answer session that leads to endless regress. The concept of within and without are relative and not ultimately real.

Yes, but what's the movement of choice to recognize?

That's interesting, but one can still have the realization, and one's collections of conditions manifest as this seeming I can make some freer choices once it's awareness starts seeing past the individual construct.

I don't have to prove it to you. You asking for it is a revelation of your linearity. It's proven by many of your statements concerning my posts.

No, you think in a linear way. I think in a non-linear way, more abstract way. I was saying that relativity seems to work with Buddhist findings... The relativity of perception. I wasn't saying that Einstein mentioned so.

Kundalini means coiled in sanskrit as far as I've found, doesn't it? Some words seem to have different definitions though. Anyway, it seems to be a truth that all this is a creative matrix, a vast process. The less we see I against the universe and more that I am a part of it... we flow light hearted and see the bigger picture always, thus acting in every moment referencing a wider source of information, rather than just the personal me and it's little life.

They're not as nice to me as you are. I prefer talking to you. Though we know we disagree on many points. Your always cordial and don't insult me personally so I always feel naturally nice to you.

Well, just to correct you. Buddhism is not based on rules. There is the law of karma of cause and effect. But the different tenet systems of discipline that are used to help people channel their energy and examine themselves beyond their previous limitations and habits are all relative. There are disciplines for lay people and monks. Also being a Dzogchen practitioner I only really need to stay in Rigpa. There are no rules of diet and conduct per say, except recognizing rigpa and the virtue of the moment springs from that automatically. Anyway, so one can kind of apply Rigpa to any religion or spiritual tradition as it's largely without the dogmas that are part of the first 3 turnings of the wheel, Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. I don't know if this helps your question at all?

His theory of relativity seems to be quite compatible. Because you can't see it doesn't mean a thing to me. Some people have a certain type of mind that appeals to a linear view and compartments and they can't make the abstract leaps. They think they are grounded and well balanced. They like seeing A,B,C,D. My mind doesn't seem to work that way. The Theory of the Holographic Universe seems to fit quite nicely. Many things in Down the Rabbit Hole. Plus Further Down the Rabbit Hole seem to co-inside with many of the Buddha's findings. Not that I agree with all those interviewed in the movies, but it's very nice. I like "Waking Life" as well and much of what's discussed in that. Your welcome to your opinion and I guess I'm not talking to you. Also Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche doesn't talk about the things I talk about for the most part, I'm getting into metaphysical details that recall directly from my experiences and insights supported by my understandings of the scriptures involved. I've been having transcendent experiences of meditation and dream my entire life. I haven't had a normal American upbringing so my mind probably won't function in a normal way. I and plenty of others can read my posts and find clarity. Because you cannot does does not make me sad. We have not really gotten along since the very beginning. We don't have a history of agreement at all. I appeal to my mother's PHD because she has received her doctorate through study of various spiritual texts that I have read from and by appealing to her own spiritual experiences she has written on the meaning through her own words and has graduated with flying colors. She is quite a brilliant person. http://www.rosemarieprins.com/ She's an idol of mine... and she has really good insight. Who's finding confusion? You? Some others? Not some others as well who seem to find clarity. There are those that find clarity and those that won't. I'm sorry that I can't appeal to you. Que sera sera!

Other people seem to understand just fine and not find it condescending. Though sometimes I am a bit condiscending right back at people, yes. I find that this logic thing is far more subjective than people make it out to be. Also, I am trying to explain a non-dual type of realization through a dualistic medium. My Mom with a PHD can make sense of my writings and understands them just fine. Plenty of people are dumbfounded actually by certain peoples lack of ability to understand my writings. I am not saying that things don't need to change in the ways of my expressing from person to person. But, mostly I'm writing to see myself talk and learn from myself about myself. Mostly those that I talk to are those that are not at all going to agree with much of what I say and are going to challenge me to reach inside and be more succinct about my experience mostly to myself. Plenty of people I don't feel like talking to, either they will just totally agree or I just don't feel inspired to talk with them. Sometimes I'm writing without having slept all night as sometimes I have insomnia. I haven't slept all night last night and I've noticed that I've had to edit really silly typo's. Sometimes I have a hard time sleeping with someone else in my bed so I just don't sleep. I also don't believe this idea that logic is just logic. Like I said before, without a certain level of belief in reincarnation and life before and after death, none of my posts will make any sense. If you do accept these as facts and find them logical, then you will most likely find my posts much more logically congruent. As the formulation of my words precede from a certain paradigm of not popularly accepted facts.

I do agree, these are the gods of various Abrahamic religions and also Hinduism. They say, I am the one supreme god and worship none other than me. They take revenge and kick certain people out of heaven realms, they aren't enlightened, just long lived and powerful. Like dictators.

Well there have been amazing Anthropological finds in the red sea or dead sea and in the ocean in between India and Shree Lanka. Like cut out stone and what not, possible civilisations. Things that prove various things that appear in scriptures true, like the road between India and Shree Lanaka that existed some 5,000 years b.c. when Rama was supposedly alive and more. I don't think it's delusional at all that there were different cycles and different based civilisations. Just because we are like this now since the time of the Agricultural age pretty much, doesn't mean we were always like this. I mean look at some of the Tribes like the Bushmen and the Aborigine desert tribes. They are quite amazing and have a language that dis-includes selfishness, hate, revenge and things that we think are naturally a part of human society, but are actually just false conditions and these tribes have been the same for 30,000 years because they didn't need to change. We can change our nature through thought, focus and intention.

Ok... I don't think I'm attacking you. I'm sorry if it feels that way. I'm just saying that you aren't able to configure my words into an understanding that resembles my intention too well. This is bound to happen when you don't have the same inner reference book. If you've seen the Nile there's no way that you can deny it's existence. See, you don't follow the line of reasoning that explains why I and you cannot to do this, the mutual experience of limitation is based upon lifetimes of consensus for it intertwined with all the people that experience it as so. I can remove my own mind from this consensus but my body is tied into these karmas in a way that generally disallows one to attain the body of light except through lots of practice. Well yes, of course I do claim and think that I understand reality better than you. I'm not going to lie to you or myself for the sake of false humility, that has more to do with cowardice than truth. I know that you don't know how you and the universe came into existence. Or what it's made of. That's because you don't believe me, or the validity of my experience. Why should I lie... we disagree. Yeup. That's right... that's what I believe. It's an assumption based upon reading your responses to my words and others. That's all, I don't have the book of your life in front of me. You could be lying too. I know that I'm not lying and I trust myself. You might not though. Well, there is a consensus that my experience lifts me personally to a community of beings who share that experience. This can seem like a foreign language to you. It's fine if you don't connect to me, you can connect to plenty of other people. Through my own direct experience, I believe the language of the Buddha and I believe the language of the Dzogchen Masters, Nagarjuna and Dharmakirti as well as many, many others. I don't need your approval. I don't mind talking with you. But, if you don't ask specific questions then I can't get specific. Your asking questions that reveal more of your attachment to your view and your reluctance to budge from it. For me, it feels like I'm talking to an alien. I've been on Earth for a very, very long time. I've been human for a very long time. So it's all quite fine. I'm not assuming that you are an alien, but my side of the equation seems alien to you and yours is alien to me as I grew up my entire life with a Mom who is a practicing Advaita Shaivite who's view is quite close to Dzogchen, the path that I practice now. So, this view and understanding is down to Earth home for me. Both me and her understand the language I'm using as we have pretty much the same reference books. She's a PHD in women's arts and spirituality, she's not poor white trash dumby. She's a college professor.

Awesome!!

I'll be sure to be well!! Thanks Marblehead...

Ok... there doesn't seem to be a consensus on that though. As people seem to be able to fit their Theistic ideas into it. Maybe it's just an expedient means that allows for a person to focus on himself within a larger context? But is like a knife that is used to cut another knife.

That's just wild!! Wow... The first stages of virtual reality games and interactive movies... SOOOO COOOL!!! I hope it's used for strictly entertainment purposes.

But, I don't believe in a first cause and find that rational faulty to begin with. I didn't make it clear that I don't actually believe in a first cause, or a God behind everything? I think I was trying to reveal how faulty it is. Well, Buddhists feel that due to reincarnation, that we were there and that different levels of the universe role out underneath, dimensionally the other one. Like denser universes with denser laws of existence are shorter lived and each emanate from the less dense one and are re-absorbed back into it in a layered big crunch effect, so we watch it happen on an inter dimensional level and can remember this experience through meditation. I don't expect you to concur with this as you don't as of now believe in past lives or future lives or after life in different dimensions of conscious experience that are either denser (lower darker realms) or less dense (higher more illumined realms). This realm being an in between realm with night and day, and many physical laws that organize our generally unconscious consensus of group experiencing.

Well, I guess what I mean is that how this universe evolves or it's nature, is based upon how the last universe ended, as in what was left in the many individual's karmas that entered into formless samadhi at the end of the last universe when all dense objects and matter were burnt away and all that was left was a whole bunch of people that had the consensus of oneness as a formless consciousness state and they all seemed to merge together into that state together in bliss, only to come out of it one by one after the merits of that state of focus and agreement were burnt up. Thus the different long lived gods were born first in this universe and they teach according to their experience and belief that we all come from one formless truth, or that it's a God, or a impersonal potentiality, then the realms slowly manifested from refined conscoiusness realms where there was not really density, then into dense more dualistic realms of conscious experience of consciousness and matter.

Lets play marbles with your head!!! I'm sure it's been said before but I couldn't resist.

Oh yeah... I'm trying to look cool and gain friends who will put me on their shoulders. I'm actually interested in people have breakthroughs and experiencing the blissful epiphanies of comprehension that transcend the dualistic thought process, where one sees these truths spontaneously without having to label it internally and explain it to themselves, because they are the realization. I don't think your ready to look at someone objectively who comes from a level of experience that you have not had. I think you'd rather just call them crazy. It's easier. Go ahead... come on... What's funny when people think they have someone pegged, but others have an entirely different experience and interpretation of the person they subjectively have pegged in a way that's like an entirely different universe. As if the person was completely different to the other person who's opinion and experience disagrees, but everyone thinks they are being objective and they are seeing the truth, because seeing is believing, right? Matter must be solid, it feels that way... Yes, it would take initiation into a stream of enlightened beings or lineage of enlightened beings that would influence your previous influence to dis-enchant and open to a different experience. So, you might have to fight for the answers through your 5 senses for a while before you get tired of trying to find answers that way and just meditate and turn your awareness internally. It's not really a Buddhist belief system. Actually there are many spiritual traditions that believe this, but Buddhism interprets how it happens in a different way at the point of it's basis for occurrence. Hindu's believe it's all made of consciousness too, but they believe it's one consciousness and not many conscoiusnesses. You don't know what consciousness is though. When one meditates one experiences different realms of conscious experience of consciousness. Of course, you'd have to see it to believe it, as seeing this would change the interpretation of what you see through your five senses. It's group consensus with information gathered and conjoined over endless time of identifying with limitation. We can as a group of sentient beings on the planet completely change everything if we all let go of our limited identity based information processing based upon limited experiences, but that would mean the potentiality in sentient bugs and animals and every single human. I cannot will that experience for you because we are not collectively on that consensual level of conscious experience. I don't think that this level of experiencing can really be talked about with you with any thought of having a break through as you would need to have some depth of remembered meditative experience that transcends your current paradigm of comprehension. Oh there I go, trying to look cool! I use big words because they carry more meaning and need unpacking but it's better than writing really long posts with tons of small words. My posts are already very long. Anyway yes... protest away, this is just practice for me. I have no illusions that I will actually change your mind. When I go to school for writing and philosophy, I will have seen what I've learned from here.

it's pieces evolve from other entities though continueously. NY society continueously has new people coming into it and out of it evolving and effecting the entire city in different ways on and on.