Vajrahridaya

Yes, but we don't really have any surviving lineages to tell us that they do lead to the same results as the current lineages from India (and surrounding regions) and China (and surrounding regions).

Sure, but there are "passed down the lineage" systems that have particular results, such as body temperature regulation, the ability to get nutrition without physically eating, and as well the Jalus, or rainbow body, and plenty of other things that come about through these master lineages of energy training. Because due to understanding emptiness, there is not one thing that we are, and other things that we are not. We are everything and there is as well no designation for a "we". So, since energy is part of the entire process, it's important to get to know ones personal energy, and how it works on a personal level in reference to our deeply held concepts of "self" and "other." Of course, the Buddhist tradition is very keen on not doing these deeper exercises unless one has an experiential cognition of dependent origination/emptiness. Which is why they are kept secret as not to harm beings as some of these practices can lead to incredible harnessing of power that can be used for both self detriment and/or harm to others as well.

Where? What was it's name?

Well I guess he doesn't have that power.

LOL! More like 99.99999% sure. You don't give up food and meditate for that long straight without gaining powers of love and compassion, unless he was meditating on hate the entire time? Extremely doubtful that was the case considering his Vajrayana background.

Sorry, I must say, Buddhism isn't a theology. It would also see all these opinions, the people behind the opinions and the animal as empty of inherent existence, dependently originated, thus all the opinions are both true, but not ultimate. But yeah, I'm just being trite. LOL! Thanks Gerard.

I think Jetsun and GIH both have valid points.

I don't see anything wrong with what he did, though I wasn't there. I hope those people who taunted him and tried to manhandle him learned their lesson.

Of Vajrayana doing energy work? Completely sure, my Buddhist practice has to do with inner alchemical energy work. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trul_khor excerpt: "Tsa lung Trul khor (lit. "magical movement instrument, channels and inner breath currents") known for brevity as Trul khor (lit. "magical instrument" or "magic circle;" Sanskrit: adhisāra) is a Himalayan tantric discipline which includes breathwork (or pranayama), meditative contemplation (or dhyana) and precise dynamic movements (or Body work) to centre the practitioner and to engender the body-mind precision of a keened instrument. Chögyal Namkai Norbu Rinpoche, a prominent exponent of Trul khor, prefers to use the Sanskrit equivalent term, Yantra Yoga, when writing in English. Trul khor hones the practitioner's faculty and supports the mindstream re-emergence of natural body-mind or primordial awareness or rigpa (cf. Dzogchen). Trul khor traditionally consists of 108 movements, including bodily movements (or dynamic asana), incantations (or mantra), breathwork, and visualizations, all timed to heart rhythms. The flow or vinyasa (Sanskrit) of movements are enlikened to beads on a mala. The body postures (or asanas) of ancient Himalayan yogis are depicted on the walls of the Dalai Lama's summer temple of Lukhang. Trul khor is the fruitful distillation of the confluence of centuries of ancient Bön movements, Indian yogic traditions, and Chinese movement forms (that developed into disciplines such as Tai Chi Chuan). Himalayan physical yogas vary between lineages and the complexity of the practices are not disclosed until a deep level of samaya is realised by the practitioner. Tantra is all about engaging with the energy of the individual. This is why it is considered a tantric path, because it's more about the energy, the chakras, the winds, and bringing them into the shashumna nadi. Also about getting energetic transmission from enlightened lineage for the sake of pointing the sadhakas mind in the right direction." More importantly in line with your query below. "Tsa lung The 'subtle body' which is often referred to as the Vajra Body in medieval Tibetan Buddhist discourse is constituted by the flow of subtle energy currents: 'rtsa' (Wylie) is equivalent to Sanskrit: nāḍī, sirā, srota and dhamanī; 'rlung' (Wylie) is equivalent to Sanskrit: prāna or vāyu. Metaphorically, the two outer channels are gendered in the Himalayan tradition of Buddhism and Bon where the male channel is lunar and Moon oriented and the female channel is solar and Sun oriented which is a particular inversion of Shavite, Shakta and Shakti tantric traditions of Sanatana Dharma where the male is generally identified as solar and the female as lunar. Tsa lung Trul khor employs the tsa lung and they constitute the internal yantra or energetic sacred architecture of the Himalayan yoga's alternate nomenclature, yantra yoga. Yantra therefore not only denotes the asana of the physical bodily posture and position and transition between asana, but also denotes the 'spiritual energy' (rlung) generated from the vinyasa of the movement but also the vajra of the subtle body, the energetic yantra."

I guess you've never been introduced to Vajrayana Buddhism? http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewforum.php?f=40 Go sign up there and ask the same question there. You'll get plenty of responses. Vajrayana Buddhism has been doing the energy work for just as long as the Hindu Yogis in India, if not since earlier. You can read a bit about it here, though I don't agree with some of the information, it's a pretty well informed Wiki article about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana It seems that mostly you are reading Mahayana Sutras which will not talk about the esoteric teachings that one needs transmission from a lineage Master in order to fully engage in. Blessings! p.s. This is also interesting concerning Newar Buddhism as practiced in the Nepal area for a couple thousand years. It's an older form of Vajrayana that predates the form found in Tibet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_Buddhism

Ok, there you go, now I understand your point. Ok then. Yes, both are truths, one is more liberating than the other in my opinion. One leads to a long lived formless god realm, just as the Buddha asserted and I have ascertained through study of and meditation on Vedantin texts, and the other leads to a more grounded, and eminent form of realization that has nothing to do with merging with a transcendent, self existing entity.

Yeup!

How is this known that they are fingers pointing at the same moon? This is an assumption based simply on where you are sitting now, in my opinion it's spiritual ambiguity, which is what happens when one takes up the non-conceptual as an essence. Sure, it's a good place to be, but it's not liberation as the non-conceptual is a bound view as well. If you get into the details, which is where the truth is, in the details, and unpack the meaning of the concepts as defined by the sages of the different traditions, you will get to a different subjective meaning. I used to be all about this spiritual ambiguity... But, it's not enlightenment, it's just buddy, buddy, let's all get along because we're scared to challenge ourselves to dig deeper in front of other people. We'd rather save face. What else is a blog board for? But to challenge ourselves to dig deeper and find answers to deeper questions than we are allowed to ask out loud at our daily job. Everyone wants to react to me, because I don't agree with everyone. Why can't I have my opinion, differing from others? I'm not a Monistic Idealist anymore, though I once was. It's good for parties, but not for sifting through the meaning of life. It's nothing but a blissful glaze-over, a blissful generalization. The Buddha certainly wasn't scared to question such dogmas of vaguery. What I'm saying, is that it's my opinion that the term Tao and Brahman are not pointing to the same realization. I can quote scriptures to illustrate my point. I'm into clarity, so why does my opinion have to be the same as yours? If my self educated and experienced opinion differs from yours, it's a dogma? I can say the same bout your view, that I find your imperialist all subsuming monistic idealism a dogmatic approach that doesn't let a tradition have it's own path, identity and conclusions. Not from an egoic stance on identity, but rather that maybe the paths do have different cosmologies stemming from an entirely different view of the nature of things? Just to illustrate a point, From the Buddha: Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: Lokayatika Sutta Now of course Monistic Idealists will read this, as I once did and gloss over it with the idea that, "ground of being is transcendent"... but it's pointing to a realization subtler than this as revealed in other texts... The Tao Te Ching is also pointing to this, as it is defined as, "The Way" but the way of things cannot be grasped, because it is empty, it's not one, it's not many, it's a flow, a never ending and liberating flow. Brahman is defined in hindu scripture as... "Sat Chit Ananda" Truth Consciousness and Bliss as well as truly self existing. Also... "That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protector, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever." I have read endless scripture in reference to Brahman, I've experienced directly what they mean by Brahman being beyond thought. I'm not talking from book knowledge. I know, it's easier for you to do away with me by having that thought to yourself. But, the insight is different, the understanding and result of the understanding is different. The cosmology is different. I know, it seems clear to just bliss out with the all is one beyond concepts state of mind. I did it a number of times while doing this to illustrate the point to myself much better. It's just a potential of the mind and it has it's merits, but it's not the end all be all. I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being inquiring.

And I thought Taoism was supposed to make your bladder stronger? Weak!

Yes, you are reacting... I wrote this at the bottom of the post. You seem to be dogmatic ralis, you get dogmatic every time I don't agree with everyone, you have a mental dogma that makes you want to react to every single post I write instead of debating the points like plenty of others are able to do. You lack the capacity, that's fine... then just sit back and ignore my posts.

Read to the end of my post before reacting in your usual fashion. 4$$#073

I understand that the popular way to react to someone challenging ones own charished mental dogmas is to retaliate. It's natural. I've done it myself. He answered many times in other places... He said in other places, "dependent origination is the all"... he also said, "To see dependent origination is to see the dharma and to see the dharma is to see the Buddha." Here's one such text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html "In this sutta, the Buddha faces two antagonists: Baka, a brahma who believes that his brahma-attainment is the highest attainment there is; and Mara, who wants (1) to keep Baka under his power by allowing Baka to maintain his deluded opinion, and (2) to prevent the Buddha from sharing his awakened knowledge with others. Of the two, Mara is the more insidious, a point illustrated by the fact that Mara always speaks through someone else and never directly shows his face. (Another interesting point is illustrated by the fact that Mara is the source of the demand that one obey a creator god.)" When you see dependent origination, you see your own liberated nature as it is the way things work. The theory of dependent origination is not limited to the 12 links. Also, Thich Nhat Hanh is a Mahayana Buddhist, but he's not a Vajrayana Buddhist which has more explanations and applications for dependent origination than Theravada and Mahayana. Dependent Origination/Emptiness the conceptual model is not the answer, it is the clearest conceptual formulation of the answer. Which is why the Buddha swore by it. He also said, "There is no teaching like this on the earth at this time." If you want to know what the Buddha said, study the Buddha. I used to use quotes from him, pulled out of context to justify my Theistic leanings. But, then I came across things the Buddha said, like, "there is no self, whether in the skandas or outside of the skandas, there is no self of the many and there is no self of the all." Self is only a relative designation, but there is no ultimate nature, no ultimate "spirit"... no secret will behind everything, designating everything an illusion but itself. This path is a result to clinging to one or another of the formless samadhi states as ultimate and absolute, then creating an all subsuming dogma around it. Ideas such as "God is one, but it's forms are many." This is a deep, and subtle dogma. No, you can't, because there is no you to be attached to it as the insight dictates intuitively. Actually in a sense, one realizes how attached to everything one is due to seeing dependent origination, but due to seeing emptiness directly, ones awareness is free from this attachment yet one acts out of compassion due to the fact of the interwoven nature of everything. There is no nakedness, there is no one that was clothed to be naked to begin with. Anyway, we are trying to talk about Taoism and the concept of Brahman. I don't find them compatible, because Brahman is describing a static formless Self of all, that has no cause, but causes movement through the illusion of Maya. In these texts that allude to Brahman, they are describing the experience of the jhana/samadhi of infinite consciousness as the end all be all, the all subsuming dogma that absorbs ones potential for true insight into the nature of things. There is also the concept of parabrahman, and this is describing the jhana/samadhi of nothingness, this is not compatible with neither Buddhism, nor Taoism as it's a top down theory, making this experience a proof of a self existent transcendent singular source of all that has a will of it's own. The Tao is a dynamic force that is basically a metaphor for the all, It's basically the same as saying, "everything and infinite potential for more." The Tao is basically saying, "the way of things", just like saying, "dependent origination/emptiness." In Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and all else is an illusion, Maya. In Taoism, there is no illusion, just constant flow, change, and that's the constant, the forever nature of things, the Tao. The way of things being impermanent, every flowing, is the source of things, the mother of things. It's a different view all together, leading to a different outcome.

You react, make impertinent comments instead of debate, that is your style. Stating that Spirit is God is an absolute, a dogma. Saying that "spirit" is the all mighty beyond logic, reason of existence. Taking a super emotional experience or an experience of mind without concepts as proof of a causeless cause of everything is an absolute ralis. I'm into relativity... so I'm questioning 3bob's usage of the term "spirit."

This is Ambiguous. What does that mean? Oranges as well are not oranges, they are a collection of molecules, and we project the name orange onto it in reference to it's color in our language. Apples are not apples, they are a collection of molecules. This is how apples and oranges are alike. Can you elaborate?

I have no dogma. I want to understand the meaning of your language, your usage of words, where your questions are leading? Is having no answer the answer? Enlightenment is realizing answers directly, with and without concepts, but we are expressing this through concepts here. Enlightenment is untying the knot of ignorance.