Vajrahridaya

Are you an authority enough to make this statement with unwavering faith?

It doesn't matter what you or I think of him, he's still an authority regardless and he was aware of this, while being free from it at the same time. Which is what is required of being an authority in Buddhism. You internalize the concept differently than I do. You have a mental dogma surrounding the term. You are head strong. I only agree that I should have unpacked the meaning I intended for the statement as I'm doing now. Internally it does not take nearly as long to do so. One can write endlessly about a single moments occurrence within the mind of a being. Both can be a criteria for the term. He can be considered an authority due to the fact that he is one to himself even if no one recognizes it, such is the case with pratyekabuddhas. But no one will recognize his/her authority over themselves due to the fact that he/she is not an authority in the powers of communicating the realization. Shakyamuni Buddha is not so crippled by such a limitation being a samyakasambuddha, or wheel turning Buddha he was able to help people realize that he was indeed an authority in helping people recognize their own powers of authority over the tendency for self clinging. It's all dependently originated. The Buddhas authority on liberation arises dependent upon the fact of his liberation and his authority on communicating the methods which help people to the very same state of liberation arise dependent upon the fact that he was able to help people recognize liberation for themselves and they would agree from within themselves that he indeed is an authority on the nature of liberation from self clinging views. Thus the Buddha had many, many disciples who propagated his words while many themselves attained the realization of a Buddha in that very lifetime due to his inspiration.

The Buddha only offers this point of view due to the fact of how much he is an authority on the nature of mind and liberation. It's really not so dense as you make it out to be. I suggest reading my last post.

Not a very smart sense of reasoning there, as people make their own choices, even when a person is trying to be a friend to everyone, a person immeshed in their own dichotomous view will just reject someone who is asking a person to be more non-dual in their understanding of reality. In the Buddhas case, authority is more important, because those that see his message and how deeply knowing he is of its loving nature, will wish to befriend him and those that don't and rather find their own inner contention through his reflection but see it as coming from him, instead of themselves, will not befriend him. It all depends on you, maybe you like the way he dresses and you want to befriend him first, just based on something as superficial as that, then as you talk with him, you'll realize that he is an authority on the nature of things thereby you will grow in wisdom through this friendship and open up towards what he has to offer. It's really individual. But, he is an authority no matter what others say about him or think about him, as plenty of people reject him due to the power of their own delusions. Regardless of whether you get the Buddha or not, he will be liberated, and he will be an authority on the nature of liberation, as free from himself as an authority. Your view is so black and white and I guess you really didn't work through your negative projections of the meaning of the term authority and how relative it is. I promote the Buddha and the Buddha asked that people not accept his words on his authority and really make their mind up themselves through delving into the meanings of their own experiences and realizations. Upon doing so, one might come to recognize how much of an authority he is. He only asks people to question everything, including him and themselves, due to the fact of how much he is an authority on the nature of mind. I don't equate the term authority with being unquestionable as you do, especially when it comes to spiritual dynamos like the Buddha. As in, this is not what I mean when I say that he is an authority. I don't mean it in the sense that I would use it to describe a police Lieutenant. Even he is subordinate to some higher authority. The Buddha is teaching people that we are internally not subordinate to any higher authority, really... at least when we are enlightened that is, of which we all have the potential. Yes, and you equate that with bad, and I equate that with either bad or good, dependent upon the individual and the group and how they handle themselves or what they teach, etc. Really, we are all authorities in potential. Yes, you can see it as you wish, it's your choice as you are the authority of your own interpretation. No matter how much deeper a person is than you on the very subject of this, "field of meanings", it is you that is the authority on whether you accept a persons take on "wisdom" into your mind or not. Nope, not at all, that is your interpretation of my words and not my intention, that's not the make up I had in my mind when stating that, and if you contextualized that statement within reference of the entire body it appeared in, you would be able to see that I mean an authority when it comes to being a Buddha as he is actually only an authority on liberation due to the fact of being liberated. This is what I said. I didn't say what you said I said. Again, an example of projection, and reification of reflection. Entirely missing the intended point of the statement. Of course, this happens all the time, which is why people reject the Buddha as an authority on the nature of liberation from self clinging views, because they are too busy reading their own projections, clinging to them as self, and missing the point of his offering.

I agree and most of the disagreements that we all have on this board I think stem from how people individually contextualize statements as different from the authors intent in making the statement. This is where I think face to face conversations can be more fruitful, as one gets a genuine feeling of what the persons intent is in saying things, due to voice inflection, body language, just the general energy of an individual which can be detected with more accuracy through more personal conversations. Even though there are cultural barriers to this as well. Like an Indian may say something that sounds like a question to us in the USA but is rather a statement just due to the infection in their voice. Also, for the English, the backwards peace sign means something vulgar, while for us in the USA it means peace. The same symbol, two entirely different meanings. I found that out as a youth in a camp, the English counselor was like, "Oy.. what's yur problem mate?" I was like, um... nothing... I was just giving you the peace sign. LOL!

I'm not talking about authority figures. I'm just talking about different inspiring authorities of variously different perspectives.

Pulled completely out of context, meanwhile donning it like an authority figure yourself. I was speaking about those that are actually authorities on spiritual matters due to depth of experience and insight into the nature of things, and not just appointed political figures, which is how you took it... out of context to seem like. You consider the term Authority a bad word. You have an emotional cringing when it comes to this word. You should work through that subjective attachment within your field of meanings. Maybe on your next post you will do so. The Buddha is an Authority, my Rinpoche is an Authority, the Dalai Lama is an Authority and they've Authored many texts concerning spirituality and the methods for attaining ever deepening states of wisdom. They are true friends of society.

You should follow this advice. Your dark side view of matters religious is not a sign of someone who has lightened up.

Nice perverted interpretation of my intentions. Mostly I talk to you in a way that others can read, as I recognize you're too hard headed to soften your perspective.

Sure, there is the experience, but the process of integration and grounded realization is something else. So many people have the glimpse, but so many people also form many concepts around it, thinking that these concepts reflect it the best and then they create an identity around this conceptual form, or even a anti-conceptual formlessness, or a mixture of both. I experienced what I thought was my heart mind for the first time in 1981, at the age of 6, glowing compassion, deep peace, total equilibrium and inner stillness. But really, that was just one of the form jhanas as described by the Buddha. Many people mistake a jhana for the experience of rigpa, and there are many levels of jhana that are very powerful and deep. Rigpa does have to do with omniscience and your rejection of various facts about the cosmos as explained in Buddhism, about how it's structure works, as the cosmos is structured, obviously, just doesn't reveal Rigpa to me. It just shows that you probably had a great jhanic state revealed to you, but not much insight into the nature of things. I don't know, I could be wrong, as I'm just going on what you've written here. But, anyway, even if you experienced Rigpa, deepening your integration with that level of awareness is a process of utilizing that powerful bliss to cut through all structures without destroying them. Also, experiencing Rigpa, you should have a recognition of how the Jalus, or Rainbow body is possible on an intuitive level.

I was being extreme as a joke, just to illustrate a point. As far as mentioning the heart mind, I do every time I mention Rigpa. Also, too many people have too many concepts surrounding the heart mind, either that or to many anti-concept concepts. What's the heart mind? People will get emotional thinking that feeling is the heart mind. People will think, but mind is thoughts? Then you say, center your attention in the center of the chest, and I've read people doing that and just getting scared and feeling heart palpitations. If you actually read any of my posts with a grain of sensitivity, you would sometimes fall into a spontaneous state of heart mind, as many times my posts were written from that very state. But, you are too busy looking for the dark side, too busy hunting me to appreciate the things I say. There are plenty of others who have read my posts and have commented that they "got it". Both publicly but mostly in pm. Your view of me and my posts is subjective and you don't get that. You think your interpretation of my posts must be the absolute truth, because your perception is so great and high, as you "get" the heart mind. I will not tailor the way I speak to your personal sensitivity.

Grace in Buddhism is the energy of those that have gone before, those of the tathagatagharba, those that represent a part of the cosmos that is beyond itself, a potential within every sentient beings. Grace doesn't come from an omnipotent universal essence endowed with Self will for Buddhas. That would just be a reification of the formless states of samadhi, very powerful, hard to cut through, the seed located deep within the unconscious minds of sentient beings as the Alayavijnana (Storehouse Consciousness, the "I" maker).

All these anti-religion fanatics, I wonder if they're going to inspire psychopaths to go around and shoot monks, while quoting their scriptures. It looks like a new anti-religion religion is on it's way here folks!

Where did I say that? I say it's the clearest container on Earth. Even as most all mainstream and non-mainstream mystical traditions were influenced by the Buddhas teaching as Buddhism was the largest spiritual tradition on Earth for over 1,000 years, until maybe about the 600's and maybe until about the 8 or 900's or so with his expansive explanations of various concepts. Wisdom has no container, but that too can become a container, this reification of no-container.

Always the dark side for you.

All the different dharma teachings, which may appear contradictory, but lead to realization of the dharmakaya. Like Vajrayana is a dharma door that looks very different when compared to Theravada, but both are considered dharma doors. Basically, he's talking about just mastering all the different perspectives that Buddha teachings manifests itself through.

It all depends on what you need in the moment, but really then if it's both, then it's just right, relative to a persons necessity. Just as in one life, taking up the monks precepts are right for an individual, but in the next life, that person may be evolved enough to practice vajrayana where one transforms all sense pleasures into dharma gates, making the monks precepts wrong for that person in this life and they would actually suppress the persons ability to evolve. At the same time, for someone who needs the monks precepts and empowering ritual, the opposite would be true. This is why religion is important, from it's purist vantage point.

Because it's not a soul, it's a mind stream. Soul as a concept, is just too concrete a term for Buddhist analysis, that is all. At the same time, one can say, soul in place of mind stream, as long as one doesn't get caught in the projection of some sort of atman. As the soul is empty and just arises due to a personalized stream of causes and conditions coagulated together due to a clinging to a self for samsarins and coagulated due to the turning of such conditions into selfless service for nirvanins. To put it in a dichotomous fashion that neglects the grey of detail, which is important for contemplation. Detail is where the Abhidharma comes in and breaks it down. The thing about Buddhism, is that individuals, even the Adi Buddhas were all sentient beings once, prior to attaining full enlightenment, just done so in a previous cosmic cycle, and manifest in this cosmic cycle without various obscurations in order to influence beings in the positive. Unlike in many other traditions where gods are symbols of an unborn or undying "self" of all, thus reifying an essence or a soul of all that births all souls. This would be antithetical to Buddhist contemplation, as this does not recognize emptiness, but rather consciousness as supreme and uniform. People do need these beliefs though, as they arise dependent upon the needs or desires of people. People need an anchor for personal evolution, and Buddhism uses these anchors as well, in traditions like Pureland Buddhism. But, for Buddhism, this anchor is analyzed and stripped of it's power to bind once a practitioner is ready for such things. As this ideation of a true and solid self existence reified through the concept of soul, generally speaking, is the seed of becoming insnared in Samsara once again, even if one does live a long life in a heaven realm with ones favorite god. As even the great gods like Brahma have a life span, and fall into blissfully ignorant and formless slumber at the end of a cosmic cycle to be reborn ignorantly in the next one without any memory of having been a great god in a previous cycle. Of course, you don't have to believe this, but this is what Buddhism says about it. So, either Buddhism is wrong, or there is something there worth contemplating for deepening ones awareness of the nature of things. That's up to you to decide of course.

But then conditions will eventually set up for another Wheel turner. The process will then cycle again, as it does.

Interesting, isn't it? Projection then reification of the reflection.

When they take that up as ultimate enlightenment. As no view is still a view. The problem with these boards and these armchair pundits who say they don't need any rituals that have specific purposes and meanings as well as outcomes or practices of any sort, are really just turning spirituality into an intellectual game. Sure, there is jhana yoga, but if that was all that came of all this, was just pushing concepts at each other in the hopes of realizing the nature of things, then that would be a great disservice. This is where people get fanatical in their religion destroying mentalities, which is actually dangerous, somewhat like Jiddu Krishnamurti. Yes, they have some nice things to say that are important, but they are incomplete teachings that just go for some sort of ultimate no view, or ultimate system of anti-belief as if it were a self of all. Religions should be purified, cleared, people should do the inner work which the exemplars have revealed through their fruition bodies. Maybe names will change, or evolutions will happen, but with a mentality to destroy them? Then what would we do? The time occupying traditions of coming together to chant, and sing under a beautifully adorned roof is part of the zest of life! Even after liberation, masters still continue to do beautiful rituals with colors and symbolic tools of ritual, because it's good for the living brain, and the living body to do so, that is why.

Supposedly you find a stable self at Buddhahood, when your insight into the nature of impermanence is stable. So, it's still dependently arisen, but it's based on Dharmakaya realization.

Well, like I said, if your belief is reflective of omniscience, which is a gradual process of widening depth of perception into nature, then you are like a Buddha, who does have a view, but is free from it. I don't think getting rid of beliefs is going to make one enlightened, just see through it while not being rigid about it. One should be confident in ones belief but understand that it arises dependently and has no self essence. One shouldn't be all insecure and bashful, one should be confident, but not rigid! Life is structure and all these... "you need to drop belief's" while reifying a view/belief in the non-conceptual as the super self standing ultimate, don't get how structure works on a deeply intimate level. Did that make sense?

Transcend Then ground and integrate, be eminent without attachment or aversion.

Life is conditioned by how things connect, and things connect inter-dependently, the ramifications of this are infinite, beliefs are a part of this interconnectivity and are also empty of inherent existence. But, those beliefs which more clearly reflect this realization, are more helpful than those that do not, if your goal is liberation from unconscious recycling that is, which means seeing through all things beyond but inclusive of the senses. There really is a kind of omniscience that dawns on one. This whole reification of emptiness as an ultimate truth that self exists is not going to liberate. Reifying the non-conceptual is not the state of Rigpa. As life is structure, it's how concepts and there experiential references connect and life is not an illusion, it's just "like" an illusion.