Vajrahridaya

HAHA!! You have no idea what your talking about. Your one of those people who reads things and believes them because lots of people say them? Nope, not the facts. Gurumayi has immense Shakti, you my dear, just cannot see it. She did not recently get cosmetic surgery. Why do you think she has the slight droop to her cheeks of someone who has gone through menopause? Muktananda, slept with some young devotees towards the end of his life practicing Kaula lineage Tantra, believe it or not. It's in the texts. It's a way to elongate the life of a Siddha by taking the female sexual energy up the spine or central channel nadi (shashumna). If you talk to the devotees who he slept with, he did not even ejaculate or get an erection. These practices are hi-lighted in Buddhist Vajrayana texts as well in Highest Yoga Tantra and Mahamudra. So when people start passing rumors about highly realized sages in the Buddhist tradition having sex, it's actually acceptable. We in the West have this puritanical idea surrounding sex that stems to Catholic suppression and control. Eh, it happens in the East as well. So... your wrong. Try again. Ah it's amazing how people are effected by internet rumors and it sinks into their minds. Or they talk to so called witnesses. Who turn out to be really crazy. What so many, many people don't understand is that when you get to a certain stage of realization, it doesn't matter if you have sex or not. Also, when you get to a certain stage of realization, it's actually beneficial to practice the sexual tantra. SongsofaDistantEarth needs to read some lineage Tantric texts. Get off that website run by a nut job called, "Leaving Siddha Yoga". I've talked to that person at length. Wow... Anyway. Gurumayi gave me and many, many others immense Shaktipat. Because you couldn't feel it, doesn't mean anything. In case you happened to go to an intensive. The Shakti around her is very palpable, as well as the Siddhi's that manifest through her. I've witnessed so much. Though, it's still just all mundane Siddhi's and not necessarily the Buddha Siddhi of total liberation from Samsara. Both Muktananda and Gurumayi are deeply loving. But, I did feel that I had to move on. Though I received so much from Gurumayi's teachings. Her books are excellent! So are her talks and so were her Darshans. She is very disciplined and I've known personal secretaries of her's on a personal level as well as her cooks. Anyway, the real scoop is much brighter of a star than the dim one you have just now wrongly expressed. Please don't start cutting and pasting rumors from another site. I've dealt with such rubbish too often. Plus it just shows how easy it is for the mind to believe negative stories over positive stories, of which I have endless.

Haiku's are 5/7/5 I guess your just expressing your freedom? Try again...

I bet Dwai's actually a nice guy when his attachment to his lineage buttons aren't being pushed. I'm sure he's quite loving in fact and people enjoy his company. I'm just debating his birth religion, that's all. Your sarcastic attempt at defamation of my character is funny though. Kind of fun to read, in a strange and freakish way? Must be a bit of my neurosis coming out here. p.s. I wonder what you think about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library? The Desert Fathers writings in the Philokalia?

Admittance is the first step to relinquishment. Renounce incomplete paths, renounce! Maybe next lifetime, eh?

Your opinions about enlightened beings way further on the path than you is not important. I like this though. Buddha did preach for 40 years in very clear statements that could never be mistaken for a reason to make war or murder millions of people. Sadly, unlike poor Jesus who only preached for 3 years and his teachings lead to all sorts of mis-understandings, murder and mayhem in a book filled with such. Yes, some very few great beings got high off his teachings, not completely liberated from Samsara, but they get to chill in heaven for a number of eons. That's cool. Then again, who knows? Maybe some of them got reborn as a Buddhist and maybe any one of the Buddhas could have been a Catholic Saint or an Eastern Orthodox Saint, or Miester Eckhart for example? Maybe Saint Theresa of Avila for instance too? But, objectively speaking, Buddha won the bamboo staff fight. Yet also, people are very complicated and people evolve at their own rates, thus they need whatever they need in order to make those little baby steps that take eons and eons to get to the understanding of even a first level Bodhisattva. Of which I doubt I am by the way.

Wow! Oh boy... definitely a freak. At the end do you ask for donations? I don't trust you my dear, anyone who believes so strongly in their subjective personal colorings of people they don't even know, is off their rocking horse. I do feel your love, but it is coming from the wrong space of understanding. You have some good psychological generalizations, but, your very much off your mark my dear. What are you displacing? Are these a bit of your own self diagnosis? p.s. This is kind of fun actually, and interesting. I wonder what else will fall out of the primordial hat? How I stired up so much dirt?? My goodness... Little ol' me, so effectual.

Awww... I love you too. So does the Dalai Lama and Muktananda. Gurumayi loves you. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu really loves you as well. Jesus... I don't know if he does. Just kidding. p.s. Here's the private message that I sent to Jesusfreak of me yelling. Oh... it's not in the saved folder. Jesusfreak, you can go ahead and quote me and show the good people how much yelling I did at you. You know I was quite cordial. Though, maybe a bit facetious. It's a good technique though, pull out personal experiences so that one can use them to chop off someones head. Then feel apologetic and come back with some sweet things to say. Meaning it to, because they feel so bad about being so personal in their attack.

I did indeed talk about my spiritual experiences too much. I should have never done that and just stuck to logic and reason, as well as scripture. But then people start saying, "oh you just read books and have no experience". So then you share experience, and they say, "oh your experience is subjective". One can't win with minds made up, that's for sure. Guess I wasn't really talking to them in the first place.

In and Out Burgers Made of slaughtering filled cries Free me through tantra

When I read your posts it sounds like your screaming and yelling. Oh well, must be get revenge on me day. The offended make more violence than the offender. Muktananda was an incredible Hindu sage by the way, as is Gurumayi. You've been reading Internet gossip too darn much. If there was internet back during the days of the Buddha, I'm sure there would be plenty of gossip about him. Ok Jesusfreak, you can get back on your spaceship.

Alright! More Ad-Hom's!! Wonderful!! Ad-Hom blocker's on!! My lifes been intense, so my expression is intense that's all... Wow... a tea kettle that thinks it sees? I've got lots of great friends on E-Sangha!! YAY!!

Oh, I'm quite aware of plenty of people that don't like me, which is totally fine, people hate great beings and small beings such as me, and people hated the Buddha (I'm not comparing my attainment to the Buddhas) and even tried to kill him. He challenged the established hierarchy that was also political, of a top down philosophy of a supreme ruler of the universe as well as the caste system established in the Vedas. He challenged the Vedas and spoke openly against much of them. So of course this will engender negative reaction. But, no... those are Ad-Hom's because any time you attack the person in a debate, it's an Ad-Hom, an illogical fallacy by saying the information is incorrect because the person giving it is blemished. Your attacks are emotional assumptions based upon a crumbling edifice of habitual subjectivity. Hardly compassion at all. Not to say that I was always Mr. Compassionate myself. But, I'm merely a Buddhist, not a Buddha.

Oh by the way, considering everything personal that I've shared as a lie, is a good way to hold onto your belief structure. Very clever, same with all your Ad-Hom's. Illogical refutations and personal attacks are sure fire way's to show how right you are. Good job! p.s. I am being quite sarcastic here. In the end though, be well!

No, I pretty much just don't agree with the fringe Shentog school that see's Buddha nature as inherent existence, and I don't agree with Dark Zen that see's Buddhahood as inherent existence. That's pretty much all I can think of right now. I think if these people follow it well that they will have very high rebirths and eventually come to understand what emptiness truly means. But hey, I'm still on the path myself. Sooooo... someone in a wrong view school can be more evolved in that wrong view than I am with my right view. There are other fringe teachers that I don't agree with but they are not established schools. I just don't agree that all paths walk up the same mountain, though we are all in the same boat, some paths lead to falling off into a submarine, and others lead to total drowning. It just doesn't make sense. Because of dependent origination, view predicates fruit of the path. The view must be "right view", the first step on the 8 fold noble path. The Buddha is very specific about what that means, and that means dependent origination. Yes, yes, but what are the real causes for compassion, and how does one elongate the ability to have compassion incessantly even beyond the end of a cosmic eon. Only Buddhism goes into that detail. Vedantins cling to this all pervasive formless Self and are reabsorbed into it when the cosmos starts dissolving into the stage of Pralaya. This is subtle stuff... not that there isn't wisdom in all paths, just that there isn't the whole view. ROFL!!! Yes, no your right... for sure. We'll good thing you don't have a fixed self, thus your view will also not be fixed, and your opinion will change as your experiences and insights change. Oh sure, the Dalai Lama had his egotistical rebirths. There were also others in the high up's that were caught up in power and greed. Oh, so hard to overcome when it's thrown in your face as a birthright. This current form of the Dalai Lama though is really something special. Individuals will be individuals. Also, for a high being to come down from the clouds to scrape up some Earth, one would have to dig some dirt in order to plant some roots.

I've always said as such. Like cycles, the start of this universe is the beginning of the last one's end. Nope, the Buddha understood very well, and it seems like Chuang and Lau did as well with the understanding of mutual co-arising. As in nothing originates without a cause, no level of experience, no state of mind, no mind without the infinite web of causation and effectation to be new causations of new effecations. People reify their belief systems, then experience them eventually over time of strengthening that belief with outpoured focus of effects from causes which are effects from other causes that are actually effects and on and on and on. Through understanding and intuitively experiencing the wisdom of dependent origination, this cycle is emptied of craving, doership and it becomes a web of merit to be offered to infinite beings without actual reified attachment to the notion. Nope. Should I be really, really self aggrandizing? LOL! We'll... It's clear that your subjective interpretation of both me and the everything else is all you have. See ya on the flip! Ah, great comic relief man!!

Sure, we worship and use tantric techniques, all expedient means, but we never reify, except some schools, but I don't agree with those schools. I find them fringe and even if established, are just not in touch with the teaching of pratitsamutpada. But, yes it is clear... from the first turning to Dzogchen. If you take the Dzogchen perspective and understand it, it all clarifies for you in your mind stream through Rigpa realization. It just fits... one understands experientially because you see through all the realms literally on a level past thought structure where information is channeled like millions of books worth per second. Get it or not, I'm not here to transmit Rigpa, just intellectual understanding. Sure it's relevant! Yes, but how one understands that compassion is more clear in Buddhism. Other paths do it because of a substantialist view of oneness. Ok, go for it. I feel that it's easier to get through a forest with an objective guide who knows the forest oh so well, so do %99 percent of those that have actually realized the nature of things. You might be reading Ramana too much? Most get caught up in blissful pitfalls. There teachings sound good but are not complete. Maybe... maybe not. Who knows the future of scientific discovery? Buddhism is the clearest representation and to say that statistic non-violence doesn't matter is... not clear thinking to me. But... your going to do what your going to do no matter what anyone says anyway. Keep on keepin' on!

LOL! That was me, but I have a new computer and don't use MSN other than to talk with you... so... I sent it to your email bro.

I use skype bro... you have that?

How was the Transmission?

It's true that if you have the proper conditions for realization within yourself, it can happen no matter where you are, or what you do. But, that means your realizing the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold noble path and not reifying a oneness. To be clear, one might as well follow the path that is clear from the very beginning to it's end and that has the most clear methods and philosophy. That is Buddhism. The path's don't all point to the same moon as they are explained to be. They don't all eradicate ignorance at it's root, the craving for existence. They don't all point to how to maintain a refined bliss body through the conscious offering of merit even after one has realized emptiness as an Arhant, which is only the beginning. It's true that if your inner conditions to be a 2 footed man are there, you will be a two footed man, but most paths are a one footed man's path that leads to an unstable realization, resting on a crutch of some sort. Vedanta does rest on an ultimate Self, Christianity rests on a God who's will we must succumb to, and this is interpreted in so many way's both stupidly and deeply in a way that is akin to the subtlest Theism, Hinduism. But still, if Hinduism does not explain the nature of things with total clarity, not even the most subtle Coptic Christians will either. Therefore the philosophies of Theism as you said, that are reflective of experience, are incomplete. More harm has come to the world through a belief in the loaded term God, in whatever language, than good. Buddhism is very clearly the most non-violent and most clearly laid out spiritual tradition. Not all the individuals in it throughout history are Buddhas of course, but the spiritual tradition itself, without being as extreme and eternalistic as Jainism who takes non-violence to such an extreme to be really only conducive to more suffering and attachment, is the only one that completely empties out conceptual and emotional, as well as spiritual craving for existence, because it never posits an established ultimate. Buddhism is indeed so very clearly laid out and completely without attachment to a self, or a reified ultimate, why not spread it's knowledge as far as it can be spread before we blow up our planet or erase the sun from the sky with pollution making it inhabitable to the human species? I hope this doesn't happen though of course! People say lighten up? Sure.. it's all a play! But the play works a certain way and Buddhism does explain how it works in so many ways, very clearly. He actually said that he brought a path that was ancient, but not on our earth at the time that was also a different teaching from what ever else was on the earth at the time. He said this in his omniscience. He didn't feel that other traditions lead to the same truth.

Ahhh, u pose da mighty Wu Dung... eh? I fling my flang, further than your father flung his sperm up your mothers over sized womb to fling you out her flatulent egg cracker ya slacker! eh? eh? Vajrahridaya... "Does the top baccoooock walk"

Must be you... only a Cock would think the Earth is distant, because you know, a Cock is a Chicken who don't know the concept of Earth under his feet from the concept of a flying Mc'Chicken Sandwich through the space of an open mouth. Nah, nah!!

LOL! No dude, I thought your first post was funny. I just laughed to myself. I wasn't understanding why you were writing that comment though to my post. So, yes I wrote something philosophical. I like that... truth got no tooth. I love that in fact. Ok, now I am laughing again. Very good... I'm gona (got get) me a yuengling. Now, which came first? The drunk or the beer? For a yogi, the drunk came first, the beer was just to quench his thirst. Yes, I've heard that in his own language, the Dalai Lama is an incredible wizard with clarity in explanation. I mean, super erudite! I mean, just look at his eyes... the vast depth of experience shatters my ego-librium!

Yes, but this is an English translation of the Tibetan. If one reads this, which happens so much in the case of English renderings of Buddhism, one thinks he's reifying emptiness as a self existent ultimate. Our English language is based generally on the assumption of a God. Most translators translate through that assumption. Especially really early translations of Tibetan Buddhist poetry and writing. It was all reified in the translations and deified. I see the same thing above. It needs commentary. I'm sorry, my view is neither came first. The chicken's possibility is probably left over from the previous universe just as the earth is a manifestation of latent tendencies within beginningless time within the chain of causation. There have been endless earths and endless chickens and eggs. Now, if you want to talk about on this particular Earth. The 1st chicken was just a deformed form of some species during it's strong evolutionary period for survival and it's deformation as a chicken just survived better. But, that's just within the limitations of this earth during this universe.