Vajrahridaya

Well thank you Kate. Sometimes in here it's like Elementary school all over again. Which is my own karma. I have an energy that elicits responses that are contrary to my conscious intentions.

Ok, Mr. "I'm in Mensa!" Yes ralis, and yours can be summed up as "Guru's are evil, Buddhism is for stupid people, and Vajrahridaya doesn't know how to write." That's a very short sentence.

Oh lordy... what does writing complicated mean anyway?? I think you mean I write opaquely. Or incomprehensibly? I think your response is subjective and valid for you. So, I would suggest not reading what I write if you get a bad inner reaction to any of it?

Thank you for your clarity Apech, I appreciate and respect it.

I have no idea who Yogani is. No, it's derived directly from my experience contextualized through what I've read, and I've read some complicated texts. If your opinion was an objective truth, everyone would agree, but sure, plenty would agree while others would disagree with you. So many people think Buddhism itself is too complicated. I think it has everything to do with an individuals capacity to see that or not. For me, Buddhism is clarifying of the complications of life, so that one can have a more simple inner state of clarity in reference to life's multi-layered complexity. My writing style got more complicated when I became a Buddhist. I was definitely more simple in my expression and understanding when I was a Hindu. For me, it's not over-complicated, it's just more clarifying and subtler of an approach. The complicated and the simple are not in conflict, just look at the universe! p.s. I don't mean to diminish what Hinduism did for me, as it was a huge step in the right direction for me. It played an integral part in my path towards positive self transformation.

Jigme Lingpa said exactly as I said. That Madhyamaka if merely an intellectual exercise, will be an obstacle. Madhayamaka in Vajrayana has generally always been tempered with the practice of Yogacara or Chittamatra and is not a path all on it's own, but merely intellectual analysis and there are a couple of different interpretations that came out of this. He basically elaborates on the fact that Dzogchen is a more pure presentation of the actual state of enlightenment. He doesn't absolutely ridicule Madhyamaka, he merely disparages some interpretations as well as some conclusions of various schools derived from trying to understand Madhyamaka. He's basically saying, those that take up emptiness as absolute, as a basis, are mistaken and only reach a certain level of meditation. When Nagarjuna talked about the emptiness of emptiness, revealing that emptiness is relative as well. So Jigme Lingpa is not ridiculing Madhyamaka which just means, "the middle way." But rather clarifying it's position. As he says taking the intellectual reference point into the state of rigpa is a mistake and a limitation. At the same time, he uses his intellect to explain this, revealing relativity, which is Nagarjunas point to begin with, sometimes having nothing to do with certain schools conclusions. I have talked about this a number of times. So has Namdrol. So, I think your idea that Jigme Lingpa absolutely ridicules Madhyamaka would be an overstatement. He disparages certain interpretations of Madhyamaka.

Ok, so we really have nothing more to say on the subject of my writing. As well as your unfounded judgment of my level of realization or lack there of based upon your inability to really read and write or understand coherently in English. Look, it's fine to have an opinion, but really? You think I write in an over complicated style but you are not fluent in English, the language that I write in?

I'm not really interested in reading an entire book to find a couple of quotes. Since I have the book on google books, as I just did a search and found that. Can you just point me to the particular passages on what page and what paragraph? I will also have to run this by Namdrol because as you know he can read Tibetan.

I don't poison my body regularly with alcohol. I've lived a very pure life for many years of my life and sometimes go out and end up drinking too much with friends and I've noticed that it effects my body and brain chemistry differently than it does with other people. I've lived many different lifestyles, including living in an Ashram meditating 4 to 6 hours a day and chanting 4 to 6 hours a day, as well as doing selfless service 6 days a week and on my day off doing even more sitting practice, and lived in this ashram in this way for 5 years. I also took care of a man with muscular dystrophy for 2 of those years as a personal attendant. This man is a great yogi and was a good mentor. I've opened and experienced every chakra to one degree or another and I have experienced the different realms associated with those chakras as well as all 8 of the jhana states at one point or another, though I've not mastered them. I'm no master, but I've experienced rigpa and the power of Dzogchen transmission directly over the last 6 years, as well as shaktipat through a Shaivite lineage 21 years ago. So, I really am not concerned with your opinion as it has no baring on my reality. From your post above, and it's structure, it doesn't seem like English is your first language. Is it, or not?

He's said it at talks and in different books. I think he says it in Crystal and the Way of Light? I remember him saying this at a retreat in NY though specifically. The thing is, is that Madhyamaka can be an obstacle too if it's used as merely an intellectual exercise. I'd have to see your reference for this ridiculing of Madhyamaka though as that would be very un-Mahayana of him.

I understand your point and I think it's valid.

Fan that flame bro... fan it good!!

Aaron, What an awesome endeavor! I would be interested in hearing about it's progression.

I know you are misunderstanding what you have read. If you were correct, than the Dzogchen masters wouldn't teach "the view" in accordance with Dzogchen tenets. For instance, views of Eternalism, view's of inherent existence, views like this are not reflective of the experience of Rigpa. The natural state is not an Eternal catch all, that would make Dzogchen no different from Advaita Vedanta. If you were right, than why would Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche say that understanding "emptiness" from the point of view of Madhymaka was paramount to understanding the view of Dzogchen? Dzogchen is the experience of right view, which is the view-less view as exposed by the Buddha. Ralis has a view and is really sticking with it. This is not reflective of the natural state and is more reflective of a formless jhana. p.s. It is true that anyone in any religion can realize Dzogchen, but that means that they are transcending the view of their religion and taking up the view of primordial awareness of the ever empty nature of everything. Just as Dzogchen view transcends the 2 truth view of lower vehicles in Buddhism which make up the corpus of sutra explanation. Thus of course transcending the meditative state of emptiness, and the explanation of emptiness as it's going right for the luminous nature of awareness, which is only clear if one has emptied it. p.p.s. By your explanation, a serial killer could go on with his view as long as he maintains the natural state, as all views are liberated in the natural state? Alwayson... the natural state IS a view, a liberated view filled with compassion and direct understanding of dependent origination.

There is no way that this understanding is reflective of Dzogchen. Dzogchen still upholds "right view" just on an experiential level and it's expressions will be in clear conceptual reflection. You really should study more and get some good reference for your understanding of Dzogchen.

Yes, I have problems. I have very particular issues, as you have your particular issues that are different from my issues. When did I deny having an issue with alcohol? This is not a solid issue. Trungpa had an issue with it as well, this was reflective of body chemistry, even so, he was still an accomplished master in many ways. All beings on Earth have character flaws in one way or another, it's just that Buddhas see past them even if they still manifest. There are different levels of Buddhahood too, as Shakyamuni was a wheel turning Buddha, he would have spent lifetimes working out these character flaws in order to manifest a body that was more clearly reflective of his teachings. It is clear by your judgment of me as well as your other statements towards me for over a year and a half that you do not understand the experience of Rigpa or Dzogchen. You will use anything as an excuse to discredit anything and everything I have to say.

I had a feeling you'd react in this way. Kate... your view is reflective of many people who take the Christian bypass concerning all religions, putting them all in the same pocket with subconscious referencing. You are from the West? No? You have been surrounded by Christian views then. Everyone who comes to an alternate view of spirituality has this view of Christianity. That I've met at least. This view of the mainstream Christian view of punishment and the disgust of it. I've experienced this projection of punishment on the theory of Karma of Hindu and Buddhist schools by so many Westerners because of their proximity with Christianity has created this fear of the idea of "retribution." Not to say you were once a Christian, but having proximity to it and your projection of the ideas of "punishment" are quite reflective of my experience with Westerners concerning the Hindu or Buddhist theories of karma. Ralis also shares your view. He also projects his experience of it all over me whenever he has a chance, calling my view akin to a Catholic Priest preaching hellfire and damnation? I'm saying it's coming from a misunderstanding of the delicateness and subtlety of the view expressed by Buddhist masters. The thing about Buddhism which makes it different, is that even in Buddhahood, one still practices Buddhism and merely experiences the body of Buddhism as the expression of enlightenment. If you understand dependent origination, you see that there is nothing to attach to in Buddhism, that it is merely an explanation and methodology of the very state of liberation that the Buddha realized and that every Buddha has realized. There is no non-conceptual ground that one transcends to in Buddhism. This is an Eternalist view and not the view of the middle way.

Oh, what happened in my life up to 15 years ago before I came to spirituality? Wow, this more deeply reflects your state of mind than anything you've ever said. This shows how little you understand of dependent origination/emptiness on an experiential level. Your sense of judgment and damnation is pretty strong in you ralis. As if people can't completely change? Anyway, the story of Angulimala was really life affirming for me!

:lol: It is a cool concept, I'm familiar with it, as well as what the idea does to women who have a stronger tendency towards such ideas! The idea has worked in my favor a number of times. Ugh, I'm so crass.

I was not disagreeing with that. Of course they are ornaments.

:lol: So bad Songs!!

Am I am the only one who thinks these concepts revolve around romanticized and spiritualised feelings of basic attachment to inherent existence. The idea of independent origination? The thought of first cause? The idea of inherent Self or inherent purpose? Well... just thought I'd throw it out there. My X used to talk about this concept, or was it some other girl? I was supposed to be the twin flame of a couple of women I think? I used to cling to such ideas at one point or another... they seemed to give life some sort of meaning... transient as the goals based upon these ideas are.

:lol: :lol: Yeah man!!

Theories of karma deal with the mental, physical and emotional, they also deal with intention. They deal with all aspects of action, as that is what karma means. When you experience it's wisdom directly, you break down and sob out lifetimes of karmic blockage, which then turns to blissful tears, then clarity in action. Ralis, I think by your revelation, that you are too caught up in your lower 3 chakras, and are very physical, maybe even overly grounded. When you shared your experiences with Vipassana, I think this reflects this overly physical aspect of your experience. You are very much locked in body consciousness. You don't really reveal much of the heart chakra or ajna chakra experiences. Much less crown chakra experiences. I think when you experience someone as being, "not in their body"... they are just not in the body on your level. Your level of body seems very dense to me. This I can feel, not so much in my body at first moment, but in my auric field, my mental or emotional level of energy, as well as in my ajna... then it is experienced in my body, the slowest and most dense level of consciousness, in the linear time sense of dimensional experience at least. I think based upon everything that you have shared, which has revealed plenty about where you are at, that you do not understand Dzogchen and that you should get some more transmissions and read some more books on the subject. This is my personal opinion, and you can take it or leave it.

I could in all justification ask you the very same thing, with even more justification, as I never even post to you without you first posting to me. As you always post to me and try to call me out... I merely respond to your contention with my own intention for clarification of the view and the point. Ralis, you have revealed plenty to me about yourself and your state of being through all these posts to me... and what I've read in other threads that I never responded to.