Vajrahridaya

One only truly lets go of that desire when one is one, practically speaking. The practice for letting go and being truly that which one is the highest potential for being is a process that is fueled by the longing to truly be thus. It's a paradox. But, it's the quickening paradox.

Oh, I would also like to add, since I'm not all right, I must also be wrong at times, wrong about the way I handle things, in ways that I'm not even aware of yet. So, I do apologize about the aspects of my self expression that are not as reflective of inter-relativity as they have the potential to be. Please find it in your hearts to forgive me for not being a Buddha, and merely being a wana be Buddha.

Oh, I don't wish to see anyone live according to how I see fit. I'm just here sharing a view. If it invalidates another's view? They can choose the reaction according to how they wish to be about it, up to you to react fanatically telling me I'm a fanatic, or... debate the point? Or, put me on ignore, walk away, whatever. I'm not nearly as attached to my views as people assume. There are 7 billion people on this planet and not everyone is going to agree with me, at all, in fact, very few will. I can just support my view endlessly through whatever quotes as well as experiential reflection, including reflection on the Buddhas "right view", the first and the most important of the 8 fold noble path, as it is the foundation of all the others. I don't actually purposely invalidate views, it's just how people take what I say. Since obviously this is a fanatical thread 3bob is throwing directly at me personally, as well as maybe some others who have the same view as I. I just thought I might throw out a different view of the whole thing. It's your choice to react to it as you will. 3bob is obviously emotionally attached to his view and is very reactive to some of my posts as well as Michaelz posts, and Xabirs posts. We are not the fanatics, honestly. I know these people better than that. We are just sharing a view, take it or leave it. This is a discussion board, no one is really going to be coming up to me asking me things. People take this stuff far to seriously. I just enjoy writing when challenged. That's just my personality type "A" Aries, whatever. I'm actually not dogmatic in person at all, I accept all people and love all people, of all types. p.s. Actually some do come up to me and ask me things in PM, and actually agree with my views in private rather than in public, including Matt Black. Matt Black is a big heart and expresser of the 4 immeasurables. He's a good balance here. He has a different personality from me. He is awesome!

If the belief is bringing ignorance or violence in the long run, it is not violence to invalidate it. I guess it depends upon your perspective. Of course, if it's your belief being invalidated, the reaction makes more violence than the person invalidating your belief. This is rather a revelation of ones own ignorance in identification with that belief. The Buddha invalidated beliefs. He was a patron of peace. Not everyone accepted that and some reacted with violence towards him.

It's good to look past the surface of the causes of ones good feelings in my opinion in order to realize what they arise dependent upon. That is if you wish to know the nature of yourself.

Where'd that last post go?

Integrating thought with that state of mind is a good one too.

By the way, I left SY because of the theism and the traps that can occur in mystic theism concerning deifying a level of experience or deifying an exemplar as well. I've seen many students of Muktananda and Gurumayi get too caught up in this idea that because it was blissful, it must be Gods will that "it" happen through them, concerning a students non-virtuous activity. Not in a way that either Gurumayi or Muktananda would personally support, but this I think is one of the pitfalls of a mystic theism's interpretation of spiritual experience. Which is one of the reasons why I think Buddhist philosophy due to it's attention to detail and transcendence of theism, is more of an enlightened philosophy than any form of mystic theism.

If you are free from the self, one can talk of oneself without the confinement of a solidified identity and at the same time, if it's not yourself getting enlightened, then who is there to know if you are free or not? If you don't know that you are free when you are free, what's the point? I think it's just plucking hairs, honestly. But, it's fine. I understand your point as well. No big deal, when I realize final Buddhahood, I'll come let you know if I can say I am enlightened or not, or if I have to use beat around the bush references in order to hint at the fact of my realization of freedom. Do the same for me, will ya?

Sure it is, YOU become enlightened to the true nature of things. If it's not impersonal, inter-personal and personal all at the same time, then it's not very enlightening. I used to believe just like you stated above. But no, I am not enlightened yet. Like I said, the Buddha did say, "I am awake."

He didn't teach that, plenty of his believers thought that though. He even taught specifically that anyone with awakened kundalini will start transmitting it automatically. He even gave permission to many different students to do Shaktipat intensives and transmit kundalini awakening. Because I am a curious type, I've read every single book published by SYDA, both currently published and previously published, as well as other books, rare books from India about Muktananda not published by SYDA that are prier to SYDA. I am very well aware of what Muktananda taught over what many of his students say he taught. Including a lot of that crap in the leaving SYDA site. I do think SYDA foundation itself can be quite cultish. Even Gurumayi has stated this, that the policies of SYDA are not governed by her and they at times try to control her as well. This is also why she doesn't give tours anymore, she has said that she has wanted a divorce from SYDA Foundation which became it's own animal, controlling the amount to charge for intensives, etc. It's not a public divorce, but she has pretty much just stopped moving as a kind of show of rebellion against the trustees and the SYDA president. Muktananda never taught that either, but human beings have their tendencies. Muktananda taught, "Bow to yourself, worship your own self, god dwells within you, as you." Not evidenced by your statements here on this board. But, whatever. You obviously think it's true. Have you asked Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche about this? Does he reflect your feeling? This is what's nice about having an enlightened teacher, it helps when we are fooling ourselves. Of course, you'll proudly say, "I don't need no stinkin' teacher to tell me if my feeling is right or wrong." Which is true, to an extent, and not true to an extent as well. It really depends upon you. But, by your statements here... I can see that you do need some external mirror to help you see your inner reflection more clearly. I agree, I've seen that. But, I don't judge them, nor do I focus on them at all. I've only met a few like that anyway and I just don't hang around them. I can see that. But, I find you very judgmental and projective as well. You assume to know, just as you project in me. What you don't like about me is probably what you can't accept about yourself, within a different, more personal context of course. Solve? No, but help... yes. Otherwise, what's the point in multiplicity anyway if we are not all here to help and influence each other positively?

This is just an initial practice for a person who is deeply attached to the story and idea of permanence. The goal is not actual detachment from the senses, just a reorientation with the mental habits concerning them, how we grasp at permanence and sustainable happiness through them. Which is why there are monk precepts, which allows a mind to change it's concepts about the senses by detaching from various unnecessary pleasures and finding a deeper source of joy within. Monkhood is not necessary for enlightenment, but I do recommend it as a step. As in, to step back from being immersed in the feeling that sensual desire is ultimately satisfying. A monk has to transcend being a monk eventually though, even if they don't do it externally, they do so have to do it internally. I don't know the nuances of your story. But, I do think detachment from the story about the senses takes time, and when one doesn't give into various sensual desires for a while, you will understand your personal story concerning them a whole lot better. By constantly indulging in every little sensual craving, one is merely distracting oneself from a deeper, more hidden craving inside. The craving for deep wholeness and satisfaction, which cannot happen strictly through the senses. I'm also not talking about avoiding suffering, I'm saying understand yourself more deeply so that you don't react out of attachment to your story which causes the suffering, and suffering can lead to selfish actions out of this sense of suffering. The sense of psychological suffering is reflected in a sense of lack, that you are not complete without the situation happening according to your pre-conceptions about the causes of joy having to do with a particular structure. A structure that is external to you, which you cannot control. As when this pre-conception is not fulfilled, the sense of panic arises and it can be very subtle, but none the less, it does not reflect insight into the nature of things, but rather attachment to stories, mental dogmas, figments of historical conditioning. Why do you need your friend to be your friend? What need does that fulfill? But that peace arose based upon the satisfaction of a particular structure of an external situation. So, it's a conditional peace, not the ultimate satisfaction of the spiritual path. Instead, you found peace in manipulating a situation to satisfy your conception of happiness, due to the sense of lack you experienced in your friends absence. This is the kind of attachment one is to become free from when pursuing the Buddhist goal. Which is why there is emphasis on detachment. It must be a deep inner realization and not an externally forced upon dogma though. Yes, detachment from the senses is not the goal of Buddhism. The goal is not some formless state of bliss beyond the senses, it's really just about seeing through them, through the stories one tells oneself about the senses, in order that one may function more freely through the senses. The stories run very deep though. Yes, the term detachment must be contextualized, absolutely correct in all your statements above. Yes, indeed, monkhood is not everyones path to liberation. It's not mine, but it was a good place to start for a while there at the age of 20 until about 24 or so. It's not so much detachment from the senses, but rather detachment from various cravings which my mind occupied it's time fulfilling instead of doing inner practice and work. It was really a process of attention redirection over "detachment from the senses." By the way you contextualize the statement, I can understand what you mean. What I'm saying is that you won't have your physical senses for that long. Life is short, so when they start fading before physical death, one better have a deeper comprehension of ones nature than what the physical senses can determine. This is why meditation is recommended, as there are deeper senses than the physical senses one can awaken to that carry one on after the falling away of the body. Otis, I appreciate your intelligence and openness and have ever since you got here.

Whatever. If it helps a person to say, "I am enlightened" a person will do so and actually be enlightened. This is a famous old dogmatic saying that an enlightened person will never say they are enlightened and I used to believe it. Who's the first person to realize they are enlightened, as in free from themselves? You will know when you are free from yourself, will you not? He did say elsewhere, "I am awake" which is how he came to be called "the Buddha". As the word for a person who is awake in pali is Buddha (awakened one). I can't find the exact scripture at this time though it is out there somewhere. I've read it many times. Someone was asking if he was a messiah, or a healer and he said, no, I am awake.

You should study some of the Pali texts if you wish to know what the Buddha taught, this is basic, "What the Buddha taught" 101. He also said that this path is not from his teachers in this life, or a path followed by any of his contemporaries. It's in the link I provided you with above. It's said that There were previous Buddhas, but there teaching had died out on the Earth at the time of the Buddha, so he came to turn the wheel again. Just like supposedly in the future, when Buddhism has died out, another teacher will come. So, the Buddha is considered a Samyakasambuddha (awakened on his own with the specific purpose of teaching the dharma) and all other Buddhas after him are Sravakabuddhas (awakened through hearing of his dhamma) He also taught that some Buddhas were here before him, but did not have the means to teach the dhamma are called Pratyekabuddhas. Xabir could find quotes much better than I can. You can look most of this stuff on google though from some good sources. If you care to find out. Just your reaction from what I said by saying, "The Buddha must not be what I thought he was." Shows that you already have some strong concepts about enlightenment. I'm not saying that we all don't have these, but, just be a little more flexible is all.

Actually, the Buddha had two teachers that took him to the highest meditation absorptions possible and instructed him in Shramana traditions of Hindu meditation. He indeed had already attained a very rarified state of realization prier to leaving his last teacher before wondering on his own. Also, certain texts say that he had realized Buddhahood prier to his incarnation on Earth as a Samyakasambuddha, a wheel turning Buddha with the specific purpose of influencing others of "An ancient path" as he called it. He said he was just here rediscovering an old path that had become lost. Of course, if you don't want to see that or believe that, this is fine. Based upon my own meditation experiences, I do believe it's possible. Anyway... follow your path. I don't reify a transcendent ultimate beyond words, that's not what the Buddha taught. I used to think that, as there are meditation experiences beyond words that are very powerful and inspirational. Buddhahood is much subtler though than just being the realization of a reified ultimate beyond concept though. Buddha didn't teach Monism (one-ism).

I'm not racist though, and I don't really care where a great tradition comes from. Sure, Europeans probably did come to China, I mean come on. Just as your videos show that Africans came to China, and I'm sure they went to India as well. Vice Versa too. We're all mixed up since pre-historic times.

I've heard of it.

On your account then, the Buddha wasn't enlightened as he did declare that he was enlightened. He said, "I am awake." Which is what enlightenment (a western word) is for Buddhahood. Jesus said, "I and my father are one." Or whatever the equivalent was in Aramaic? Anyway... I don't feel that I slaughtered the quote, I just expressed my interpretation of one single statement out of it. That's it, just one statement did I take out of the entire quote and interpret. The rest I left as is because in all, it is quite a wonderful quote.

Yes, but the Buddha defined Buddhahood very specifically, so did Nagarjuna, so did Padmasambhava. Just because a person say's they are enlightened, doesn't mean they are a Buddha, or teach the same level of enlightenment. You of course are free to believe what you want. But, I for one don't think that Jesus was a Buddha, nor do I feel that Muhammad was a Buddha. Though I value the Bhagavad Gita, I don't feel it teaches to the same depth of realization as the Buddha did or other Buddhas. But, none the less there are all sorts of inspiring people out there. I for one am inspired by all sorts of great beings from different traditions. But, the Buddha warned of all sorts of pit falls along the way, formless level attainments, reifying absorptions or samadhis, having visions of a "great being" that comes and calls himself God and say's to do this and that for the one true God that he is. Such things as this.

If the tradition leads to or influences one to Buddhahood, it's complete. What's the definition of complete? When in this malleable universe, elaboration on any single concept can have no end. Then there is nothing that externally fits the ideal of, "complete" as anything can evolve. The Buddhas teaching wasn't complete in that sense, which is why we have Mahayana, Theravada, Zen, Vajrayana, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Gelugpa, etc. These traditions will no doubt further splinter and evolve, but if true to the message of Buddhahood, will not waver from the initial intention, regardless of how it's dressed.

Sure, but the Buddha also said what those who have realized what he has realized teach, or say of what he has realized. They wouldn't teach independent origination for instance. They would teach the Buddhadharma in another language. Sure, maybe Aliens on a distant planet have attained Buddhahood and teach in an entirely different level of communication than we do, lets say maybe they don't speak but only use hand gestures, lol! That's not my point. My point was just to illustrate that it's difficult to realize ones true nature without the guidance of a person who has realized that nature shared by all. We are so blinded by our own mental conditioning of whatever level or degree, of whatever type, that we generally can't see where we are blind, because of that fact, we don't know what we don't know. So, having an objective perspective from someone who has gone deeper into the nature of things, is paramount.

No ralis, you don't get it. Your lack of research and curiosity never ceases to amaze me. I'm not interested in the corrupted versions of traditions. I'm interested in following the paths of enlightened beings, of liberated masters. Not the paths of bound, bitter sounding people such as yourself. Why did you leave the community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche? Too much personality worship in your eyes? Everyone didn't get it, but you did, so you are enlightened and don't have to read his books or follow his teachings anymore, because you got everything he had to teach? The way you speak of his students has revealed plenty about your perspective to me. As I've said before, you suffer from "nega-ception" My level of curiosity is reflected by the fact that I've actually studied the texts of all the different traditions, and my curiosity led me to Buddhism, not to old man stuffy views. "Oh, if he doesn't write in perfect English according to my personal level of research and subjective interpretation of it, he must be an ignoramus." That's basically how you see me. Why don't you go dust some shelves ralis.

He said "One in a million becomes enlightened without a teachers help." So, he's saying that one out of every million Buddhas becomes a Buddha without the help of a teacher. That's exactly what he said. The possibility of becoming enlightened without a teacher is 1 in a million Buddhas. How many Buddhas do you think there are on planet Earth at this time? Regardless, it's rare, it's harder, so why do it? Unless you really want to do it the hard way? The only reason I see for not finding a teacher or teachers that is reasonable, is that someone doesn't have a choice. Like, for instance you're locked in jail and only have access to written teachings but are surrounded by criminal mentalities. Or you are trapped in the mountains without any way out but you have a book of Dharma teachings. Well, there are all sorts of examples of a person not having a choice. But, if you have a choice, why make things harder on yourself? If you think all my interpretations are wrong? Do your thing.

So, every single Buddha since the original Buddha that created the different traditions of Vajrayana, Zen, Theravada, etc. are all merely cultish personality worshipers?