Vajrahridaya

Funny you only notice the negative. I was in fact just about to comment to GIH that I half agree with him. I'm not going to affirm what I don't agree with though. That'd be dishonest.

Yes, I agree. Perfect.

Blessings Ben, There are many practices one can do, or mantras one can repeat dependent upon your tradition. I don't know what your tradition is, but you might want to google search. The best is of course to experience love vibes and send them her way with blessings of deep compassion.

No, I'm not talking about a habit formation in the ultimate sense, that's just your interpretation of my words. But, on the other hand, it does become a habit formation in the physical brain, that's why various yogic adepts talk about samadhi samskaras in the brain, neuron patterns in the brain that actually reflect states of realization that one makes more prevalent in life through focus, and then one doesn't need to focus intentionally as it's integrated naturally through direct cognition with absolutely every phenomenal arising due to practice and application, integration and finally complete realization of all nature as it arises.

The bliss/direct insight of realization is steady and unending and naturally integrated with every phenomenal arising.

Actually no, because potential is unlimited, it also manifests as limited. It's like the concept of Shiva in Trika Shaivism. Shiva is so unlimited that shiva manifests limitation out of being unlimited, otherwise Shiva would be limited to formless concepts of unlimited. You are wrong, as the experience can be referenced to, and can be realized through reading the words that arise from a state of realization, thereby transcending the form of the words and revealing directly the meaning they are pointing to. Just because you've never experienced this yourself, doesn't mean that others have not or cannot. I also say and have many times here, it all depends upon how one internalizes the concepts. I understand that clinging to a supreme self existent that is beyond the phenomenal world as per Vedantin dictation is not the same meaning as intended by Longchenpa. This is why sincere unpacking of concepts have to be done. You cannot just quote a scripture out of context and expect everyone to understand what it means. For instance, what if I were to quote, "I and my father are one" from the Bible? What would you think? What does that mean? Can you see that if this is not unpacked, it can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings? What... does Jesus mean, one in intention, one as in physically one substance, one as in metaphysically one substance? What does Jesus mean? I would say one in intention personally, though from a monist point of view, they would be one in metaphysical substance as well. You will have to read everything else he has said, meditated on the meaning and have come to a realization, then you can re-read the statement and have an eye opening experience of his intention in saying it and become one with it. I have done the practices, I have had the experiences, I have done the inquiry into the nature of these experiences, and I have also done the inquiry into my intentions for inquiry.

Dichotomies apply where necessary. That's relativity for you. You're over sensationalism of a view based upon what you think I've said is your own creation and has nothing to do with my intention. Again, you read your own limitations into my statement by re-contextualizing it. You are fanatical in this habit.

If you have to try, you haven't realized it yet. for an Anuttarasamkyakasambodhi Buddha, trying to be a Buddha is something of the past. Speaking completely from the relative level that speech appears in.

I believe that a person has to have a strong sense of self before it can be transcended, as if a person is too neurotic, the victim of abuse, or has a weak sense of personal self, is very unconfident, this no-self teaching can make the person even weaker and yes, it can be a recipe for disaster.

I had to ask myself that very deeply in order to go from Hinduism, which is a perspective I was very well meditated in, to dependent origination/emptiness, just like the Buddha did. He pulled the rug from under substantialist non-duality interpretations of the experience of "heart-mind" long ago. Those perspectives as expressed in the Upanishads, which are mostly post Buddha by the way, and those views as expressed in the Vedas, even the cherished Rig Veda. It's all right there in the pali suttas. One cannot find a permanent "Self standing eternal" neither individually nor universally. He actually said this. So, either he is wrong or he is right. You can pull quotes out of context all night long. I know due to direct glimpses, due to insight which transcends the view of Brahmayoga on the nature of experience itself. You pull this quote out of context, not knowing what he means, I say what he means due to having studied Dzogchen and you fight with it. You can say all you want, but I'm correcting the point of view. Because, the perspective you hold about these words is not the perspective that liberates. It's not, "right view." You are clinging to a non-conceptual transcendent as a self standing reality, a will beyond phenomena. It's very subtle, the difference is very deep, and it can be realized, it can be understood, you can cut through. Lonchenpa himself talks about wrong views in his Great Chariot text and in his explanations on the nature of mind. Why not ask yourself the very same question 3bob?

See, an example of misreading concepts. A Buddha has permanent insight into the nature of things, which makes him/her a Buddha. A Anuttarasamyaksambodhi Buddha does not waver from this insight that liberates. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't be liberated and would be bound by the functionality of wavering impermanence.

Well, I think he's definitely more enlightened than he was before, having known Seth on this board for a couple of years. I mean, to finally overcome a clinically labeled psychological condition through insight, is definitely progress in the right direction I'd say.

LOL!

Ok, sorry.

Yes, because as the energy is transformed through prolonged practice into empowered Chi, then Shen, when your Jing arises, it ends up focusing upward, dimensionally speaking, it stops being clogged by the necessity to go outward. When you do this practice long enough, and you end up having sex, sometimes you can't even ejaculate because the energy is just so trained for going inward and upward and if you relax into this, even while having sex, there is no sense of outward desire anymore, the energy is fulfilled through the spiritual realm instead of the physical. Before this can happen, one has to have trained in celibacy for a while doing particular tantric practices or chi gong practices, while studying the appropriate texts concerning these practices of transforming jing into shen. This will take time though, a retraining of the mind/body complex has to be undertaken with focus and sincere desire for results.

Sure, you with your 30 years of Buddhist studies. But, that wouldn't be clear to someone with 30 years of Hindu studies, unless they were really into Ramanamaharishi, but even he veers towards more monist interpretations of "heart mind." According to Buddhist cosmology, this just leads to long lived Brahma realms. This is just traditional Buddhist views, which are expounded by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche in his SMS course. But not in his public talks, generally. Though he has said that one should really understand emptiness as exposed by Nagarjuna in a talk he gave in NYC. You say that he said the opposite to someone, which shows how flexible and sensitive he is to individual needs. At the same time, if you read his Precious Vase, he does say what he said in the public talk, that one should understand emptiness as expounded by Nagarjuna. The thing you're not understanding is that it's not just having the experience of heart mind, it's understanding it in a way where that experience can be the catalyst for true liberation and genuine Buddhahood. Not just, "Oh, I have the experience beyond words" and then you quit the practice while referencing a subtle kind of pride, never clarifying anything, sitting back and sneering anyone that attempts to in a way that doesn't coincide with your deeply held formless concepts surrounding your precious, transcendent personal experience. How is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about ralis when you keep saying, "the experience is beyond words." But, liberation in Buddhism is never about having an experience and clinging to it as ultimate. Sorry buddy, you might have studied Buddhism for 30 years, but you don't understand it.

Your right in the sense that I didn't make it clear enough. I apologize to people for misreading my intentions, due to my lack of clarity. I know what I was feeling when I made the remark. As I was considering all of us mental patients, said in jest. In a lightened up, non-serious kind of response to your ever so serious damning of my form of expressions.

Right, at this point the only way to talk about Buddhanature is through paradox, revealing it's middle point access between dichotomous thinking.

It is unchangeable, in the sense that the insight is permanent. It is a Self in the sense that this insight is now the source of all expressions of a Buddha. It is the source of all in the sense that emptiness makes all things possible. To equate it with ideas of monistic theism, or concepts concerning a creator god, would be erroneous. This is what happens when people take things out of context and apply their own meaning without the support of all the rest of Longchenpas works. Longchenpa also refutes wrong views. The problem with concepts many times is that they can be mis-read, or mis-understood if not contextualized properly, leading to a wrong view, or in this case a transcendental form of clinging, leading merely to "formless realm" realizations. Longchenpa also refutes wrong views on the nature of mind and karma in the typical Buddhist fashion.

It was a joke mr. "lighten up." For someone who asks others to lighten up, you sure are grumpy and gloomy.

Sure, but with knowing, in order not to lose it. That takes integration.

Yes, but that's what the anatta teaching means, as he's reading Nagarjuna so what I said is a given. As, relative self, yes, ultimate self, no. So ultimately no self means relative selves are all inter-dependent without inherent self essence. But, you want to see him explain it? I have many, many times... from his own fingers. But, let's see! Sorry for barging in.

He's saying, as the teaching of Nagarjuna state, that the self is relative, not ultimate. Because the self arises relative to all else, seeing through yourself definition, you see the causes of your own psychological suffering and simultaneously the ultimate causes of all others, if not necessarily the particulars. Thus, what arises is ultimate bodhichitta, or compassion as opposed to contrived or relative bodhichitta (compassion). No-self is not absolute, but neither is self. It's all relative.