Vajrahridaya

Oh man... that was funny. Thanks for that markern. Sorry to be seen by you as so, domineering. I can always take myself less seriously. I wish you all the best! Good day.

Buddhism has no absolute truth as the fact of dependent origination reveals how any view can manifest itself as truth, thus the "absolute truth" of other traditions become valid for those that hold that view, simply due to dependent origination. In Buddhism, there is no absolute truth, and that is it's absolute truth. It really is a different view. You might get it one day. I am because you are, we are inter-dependent. Because of ones view, ones reality manifests dependent upon it. This includes your view of me, which conditions the reality you perceive when I appear in front of you. You are the god of your own reality, and at the same time, you only exist because of all other beings, so you owe us all, as I owe you all. Those traditions that posit an absolute Self, or supreme self existing origin... do not see this insight clearly, thus they do not attain liberation from ignorant recycling.

Liberation is exclusive to the liberated, arising dependent upon a particular insight that engenders omniscience of the direct nature of things, meaning the mystery of reality is revealed, instead of merely surrendered to in an absorbed by mystery sense which is what most traditions do. The truly liberated, have cut through the mystery.

Sri Aurobindo was a high level Eternalist, those that feel and think all things come from one thing and that all traditions lead to the same place because they come from the same place because all things are in essence one thing. This is independent origination/consciousness, a different view leading to a different "place" than dependent origination/emptiness.

Buddhism is not a religion, except for those that cling to it as a religion. Dependent origination/emptiness is the entirety of the cosmos. Your idea of independent origination/consciousness is an all absorbing dogma that leads merely to absorption states, altered states integrated with everything and not self liberation, or liberation from the self. Not to say that beings from religions of various types can't attain the same realization, but generally they don't because of their Eternalistic leanings. If you haven't had the realization of dependent origination, I can understand your strong leaning and clinging to Eternalism. I used to suffer from the same bliss. I know, sounds oxymoronic... suffer from the same bliss. It's just a bliss that doesn't realize the ultimate insight and see it's own emptiness but rather clings to itself as ultimate reality, thus sewing the seed of future rebirth into whatever realm or another unconsciously. Simply because one becomes blinded by this light instead of awakened through this light. You still think this light is the one all be all ultimate cause of all things, when it's merely the light of awareness passing through empty space making all things seem as one, when really all things are merely connected and impermanent, yet ongoing, which is the one truth, but not an ultimate essence, unless you want to say this one truth is an essence. Language is deceptive. Because it's the same word doesn't mean it's the same meaning. Awakeness is not a dogma, but it's a definite insight that finds it's most clear expression through the Buddhadharma... on Earth that is.

Like the Devil? Just kidding... But, misinformation is misinformation. I will correct it because I can. I know you mean well, but Buddhism doesn't have a creation myth for a reason. Buddhism is the odd one out, or in... according to us Buddhists. P.S. The fact remains that Tantra first appears in Buddhism, then in Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. So, if you want to know about original Tantric practices, psychology and philosophy that still remain pure to this day, you're going to look at Vajrayana which finds it's origins in India in around the 2nd and 3rd century and is preserved in Tibet, Bhutan, Burma and Ladakh before it's decimation in India. Buddhism was the biggest tradition of India from the time of Ashoka in the 300's B.C. until only about 1,100 to 1,200 years ago with the destruction of Nalanda University and more, first by Muslim invaders then having been weakened, destroyed even further by Brahmins, then came the proliferation of Shankaras Advaita Vedanta known by Buddhist scholars as "Crypto Buddhism" due to it's large borrowing and reformatting into a different goal all together of various Buddhist core teachings. Of course there are all these people that say Tantras origins are earlier, but we can't verify this through evidence. So, I will post the Vajrayana texts on Tantra as the pure forms of Tantra, all other forms being somewhat of an adulteration leading only to lesser goals of long lived god realms and formless bliss realms. The "ecstatic" experiences merely based upon attachment to a transcendent concept as evidenced in all forms of theistic tantra and shamanism, which does not include Bon as it is not Monotheistic and never has been.

Tantra means to weave and loom. It's a concept applied to spiritual practices in the sense of meaning to transform or weave a new state of mind through various techniques. Here are my book recommendations, as far as the Buddhist view on Tantra goes. Indestructible Truth also... part 2 Secret of the Vajra World

Vajrayana is older than Hindu Tantra and is in fact more likely the influencer on Shaivism. If you actually knew anything about Vajrayana Ulisis, you would understand how far more complete of a path it is, and how it's history is far more in depth and older. Dzogchen which isn't Tantra, as well as Vajrayana which is Tantra, influenced early Shaivism. There is no way that Vajrayana is Shaivism in disguise. I used to believe as you did, thinking I was so right siting much of the same information as you do. Then I got trained by some real Vajrayana scholars and yogis that know the language of the original texts, both Sanskrit and Tibetan and got corrected, both through scholarly information and direct experience. These assertions above sited by you are false. Yes, there was cross influence, but Buddhist Tantra is far more the complete influencer long before the muslim invasion via the ancient school of Nalanda, considered one of the first great universities in history. Vajrayanas depth of method and philosophy is undeniably deeper and more vast. Having been a long student of Shaivite Tantra before coming to Vajrayana, I not only speak from experience, having Shaktipat, and having read with experience the Shaivite Tantras of various lineages, I can speak with authority that the goal of Shaivite Tantra in the most subtle aspects is entirely different from the goal of Vajrayana. The cosmology is different, the view is different, due to the fact that Shaivism is Eternalistic and substantialist, believing in a supreme deity that has personal, creative omnipotence over all things and beings, not as a metaphor, but as a real and visceral fact of their spiritual philosophy conditioning the experience and outcome of the practice. Vajrayana is far more complicated in expression due to the fact of dependent origination/emptiness. Shaivism is a philosophy and condition of methods revolving around the view of independent origination/consciousness. The axioms are too unreconcilable on the fundamental basis, unless one were to see the Kaula Tantra 36 tattvas as emanating from ones personal being, yet still empty of inherent existence. But, Abhinavagupta does not say this and in fact says the opposite, that we all emanate from one supreme being that truly exists from his own side, beyond concepts, etc. The outcome being that Shaivite Tantra only leads to long lived God realms or formless bliss realms in the end. As even Siddhaloka, the heaven realm of Shaivite Tantra is also swallowed up by Shiva at the end of a cosmic eon according to Shaivite Cosmology. Buddhism influenced Shaivism, not the other way around. There are tons of scriptural passages from history to support this fact. But, you should just study more in depth. It's Shaivite scholars that feel uncomfortable with the fact that Advaita Vedanta is crypto Buddhism with passages taken directly from Madhyamaka and the tantric techniques anthropologically speaking existed in and through Buddhism pryer to Hinduism, but mostly got destroyed with texts burnt by Muslim invaders with the university of Nalanda being one of the major centers of this knowledge being decimated by jealous Brahmins as well. From Wiki: Hindus are constantly trying to rewrite history and push the dates of their texts back, with their tantric texts and scriptures like the Vasisthas Yoga and such texts that clearly reveal how much is stolen from Buddhism without complete understanding of what they are borrowing from. You should read the Vasisthas Yoga translated in the unabridged version by Swami Venkatesananda. It's quite revealing of the limits of Shaivite/Hindu Tantra. Though he didn't intend to reveal the limits, he did when compared to the more in depth cosmology of Vajrayana and Dzogchen.

You're only at beginning stages of meditation. You need to humble down, relax, realize what your goals are with meditation and give it more time. As Patangali said, you have to give your whole life to it in order for it to bare really amazing fruit, like any tree. You'll go through many, many, many stages of meditation. By the end of your life... hopefully sooner, depending on your dedication, you'll be like... "WOW!! How have I lived any lifetime without it's grace and power?" p.s. If you're here only for entertainment purposes, even that, after a while, will gain much power through the energy of meditation. But, you'll have to go through various stages, like anyone in any college course.

I think anything is possible. Not a problem.

Oh, I know... I wasn't saying that you didn't understand this either. I was just saying.

I will. Since there are endless beings, it's an endless voyage, as there will never be an end to those that don't understand. Even though beings don't inherently exist either. It's just an appearance. There is no point when one will say, "my job is finished, there is no more to do." Even after one has realized full and total freedom from doership. This is one of the main differences in Buddhism as well, there is no ultimate heaven where one lays down the burden of action forever. Unless it's understood as an inner metaphor where one has a realization that engenders peace and freedom in action, in this case, a burden is nothing at all, and no big deal which is why Bodhisattvas gladly take it on with zest and zeal!

Ah yes... the 3 grunti's or knots blocking the lower from the middle to the top groups of chakras.

I've experienced directly as well, and there are many such parallel realms of different types and of similar types but of different appearance, and so on. There are endless beings and endless co-dependently originated dimensions that these endless beings or endless groups of beings can experience arising dependent upon variable realizations. To think this Earth plain is the one and only is really just a grasping at appearances as self and true in an ultimate and stable sense. It's really amazing when one sees directly through the awakening of the ajna chakra, the melting away of these 5 sense appearances into other, just as visceral parallel dimensions. It's quite an awakening, and there is the assurance that it's not a hallucination, in the sense that it is not merely subjective. From another perspective, there is the assurance that everything is merely a shared and agreed upon hallucination in a certain co-subjective sense. As in, we are all co-originating this reality, and when I say all... I mean endless beings, even those not born here yet. It can get quite complicated in explanation but there are Buddhist texts that go into detail about this.

Actually, there is no such "no-self" either.

The "self" that is talked about in the Parinirvana Sutra, is not an ultimate source of all things, it's not an established self in the sense that it inherently exists. It's a realized intention of seeing the interconnection of all things. It's the self of a Buddha, established only in the sense of full realization of the empty and inter-dependent nature of all things. It's the awakened self of compassion and the rest of the virtues that are engendered by this realization. It's not a "self" in the sense of the Hindus. As in, it's not Brahman. Buddhism is inherently sectarian in the sense that it expresses a uniquely viewless view, where all other traditions seem to establish some true, and self shining existence that is a transcendent and independent source of all things. This fact seems to allude most people, because if you don't internally understand these concepts on a level beyond concepts, it seems like a fight. But, really, it's just an insight that is unique to full awakening. Where other traditions generally stop, now I'm not talking about the possibility of individuals going beyond the appearance of the concepts and coming to the same awakeness through another tradition, but in explanation and method, Buddhism is unique in it's concise application of concepts and methodology. As in, if you understand the concepts within the context of the entire Cannon of Buddhist explanation, you don't make the mistake of either positive or negative grasping or Eternalism or Nihilism and you understand the middle way of the Buddha. Most every single tradition is Eternalistic, from Jainism to Jewdaism. Even in their assumption of a transcending, non-conceptual, and formless absolute. Buddhism, even conceptually, never makes this assumption. Even though, some translations into English and out of context can seem to be making an Eternalistic assertion, it is not and it's either the mistake of the translator or the reader who doesn't understand the context that is the entirety and intention of the Cannon. People only take it as attacking due to grasping at a view or a misunderstanding of the concepts. Buddhism doesn't actually attack in that sense, it subverts wrong views, which can make someone who is deeply attached to a wrong view, very nervous on a level that they are probably not aware of. So the feeling of fear arises, and then the person has to defend that attachment to the arising fear as "self." Not knowing the inner cause of the fear is itself ignorance of the truth of dependent origination/emptiness. Buddhism doesn't say that there is not a self, but that all selves are relative, and not ultimate. Even the such "self" of the parinirvana sutra. That "self" of a Buddha is only ultimate in the sense that it's reflective of the ultimate insight into the relativity of everything including itself (his/herself). So, actually there is nothing inherent to defend as an ultimate truth, there is only the assertion that all views are false and do not lead to ultimate liberation of the viewless view of Buddhahood. Of which you can make the choice to accept it, understand it, or leave it and take up any one of the proliferation of views as an ultimate stance to anchor to.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche I have found gives the most inexpensive retreats filled with information and practices, as well as transmission and even gives transmission for free regularly online. His retreats are also sliding scale or you can work for the retreat if you are really hurting monetarily. I'm also disappointed at the high cost of Wang Liping Retreats. Even though I respect him to a degree... I don't know enough about him to make a concrete opinion, but his fees are atrocious.

I concur. My kundalini was awakened spontaneously through just looking at a picture of a master at the age of 14, went really heavy at around 20 with lots of practice, got crazy with siddhi bombardment at about 24/25. I'm 35 now and still a little crazy, but much more acclimatized. It's better to just focus on virtue and purification, the rest should come naturally.

For us Padawans... yes, I must agree, and can even be totally distracting from the higher spiritual fruit. Like thought pushing, and energy manipulation in other peoples bodies or going into other peoples dreams and such things, all not recommended for anyone interested in spirituality, unless you are genuinely doing this stuff for the spiritual benefit of other beings.

Complete hogwash. The Tibetans have all the source scriptures in both sanskrit and tibetan translations with scholars that knew both and carried on the tantric tradition from India with great care to detail. You really should study more before you make such assertions with such absolute rigidity. So, you're saying that the reading of your English translations of Indian traditions are more clear?

You really need to widen your study on the phenomena of kundalini before you start believing everything you hear from one person named Robert Bruce. You should loosen up your grasping and open your mind to more information. There is so much documentation, "Daughter of Fire" by Irena Tweety, "Play of Consciousness" by Swami Muktananda, also Gopi Krishna most definitely did have his kundalini awakened, and not gently because it wasn't catalyzed by a Master, like it is talked about in these books.

By your assertions, you obviously have no experience of kundalini, so should not talk so much as if to presume that you know because you read a book by a guy named Robert Bruce. Robert Bruce is not a master on the tradition from which the term Kundalini comes from so his assertions should be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to know more about kundalini and what type of phenomena is called kundalini from the traditions that coined the term, you would be better off reading the text, "Triadic Heart of Shiva", by Paul Muller Ortega who is a genuine scholar, teacher and student of the tradition from which the term kundalini comes from. Also read texts translated by Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, Douglas Renfrew Brooks, Jaideva Singh and other such scholars all of which can be found on amazon. Triadic Heart of Shiva Only then will you have at least a conceptual idea of the true traditions surrounding the phenomena of kundalini directly from the original texts that talk about it in depth from India over a thousand years ago.

This is entirely his subjective opinion and not at all based upon the scriptural texts surrounding kundalini awakening in the Hindu Tantra or Shaivite Tantra traditions from which the term originates. Kshemaraja and Abhinavagupta categorized the different levels of kundalini awakening and Shaktipat from a living adept of the kundalini tradition in various texts known as scripture in the Trika or Kashmir Shaivite tradition. There is no need to master OBE and other such things, which start to happen naturally when kundalini is awakened, or as I like to put it, when awareness is catalyzed by an adept and coaxed through the inner layers of individual consciousness.

I have a few friends involved who have taken the curriculum and they all say it's amazing in every way, socially, spiritually, educationally, etc. I wish you the best.