Vajrahridaya

Whatever you want to use to justify it. But, he didn't lucid dream it, he actually just made it all up, in the sense of like lets say, Harry Potter, but instead of referencing Celtic Lore or whatever, it references American Shamanism.

Which is why I'm Buddhist, as it explains the complexity of my experience, both on and off the cushion. But yeah... I get it. Be here now, but this now is connected to all nows' past and present and is in that sense always the center of all events. So I think getting into the metaphysics as in the subtle causes and conditions around the constant now that is all nows' is getting deeper into the now. I think to be aware of how this now came into being on a personal level and where it's going on a general level, though specifics of the future will always be a mystery to one degree or another due to how complex all this is, is to be more clearly in the now as in you have a clearer understanding of cause and result. At first it's a process of thinking, but then it becomes a process of understanding and directly knowing what intuition is. As in, it's deepened and comes from a wider view.

No... I meant wean me off the sugar. I'm not drinking alcohol cold turkey, but I'm drinking lots of soda instead, then I'm going to wean off that. I was referring to weaning off the sugar which is how alcohol is translated in the liver and where lots of the craving comes from. HAHAHA!! So true. So smooth... right? So flow... but out of control, unpredictable... in self destructive ways. Like being at one with the Tao, but towards hell... What I find is that it makes me comfortable in situations where I'd generally feel very uncomfortable about, and for reasons that are very good in the self preservation sense.

I really meant to talk about kundalini from the point of view of mystery and de-mystification. It's all fun and games, as I am having fun being given the opportunities to clarify "the view" even from those who are being opposing. I appreciated your earlier thoughts in this thread by the way Joe, I just didn't feel the need to comment on them.

There was no Don Juan and his earlier works were fiction, not his experience, but his fantasy.

Wow! That's interesting...

Me too, I'm not saying that I won't need to keep on my toes or practice lots of self forgiveness... :lol: A good peer support group will be good too.

Your interpretation of what I said is entirely your own and has nothing to do with what I intended. This meat suit is made of all sorts of things, but mainly the coagulation of the elements of non-awareness and consciousness or sentience. It can be a tool to realize the inner causes of suffering, then become an expression of this awareness. If you are trapped by it's devices and identify with it, then it is merely a meat suit. It entirely depends upon where you are coming from with it. It can be filled with liberated bliss, or merely the cycling of pain and pleasure. Even if filled with the awareness of liberated bliss, it will still undergo the cycle of pain and pleasure, but just from a different perspective of mind. I am a fundamentalist. Definitely. Buddhism is fundamentally different from all other paths. I utilize tools from other paths but from a Buddhist perspective. I do the I-Ching for instance and if I were to ever do Chigong or something, I would do it from a Buddhist perspective. Though I'm more into Yantra Yoga which is a moving form of yoga utilizing the breath along with the movements in specific ways.

For Buddhism, yes. Which is it's uniqueness. It's not so much a carrot as it is a path to show that you've got the carrot and now this is how you peel it and share it with others, endlessly, not just now, but all of now and all it's variances.

Awwww... This is the circular chain of interdependence for a Samsarin: With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise (This happens both on physical and psychic planes) With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises (both physical and psychic) With Contact as condition, Feeling arises With Feeling as condition, Craving arises With Craving as condition, Clinging arises (This clinging can be both of form and without form in higher bliss states) With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise For the enlightened you are turning ignorance into wisdom or awareness, thus you are using the rest of the aspects as a vehicle of teaching as being a Nirmanakaya or body expression of the awareness of the nature of dependent origination, or Dharmakaya, your energy being that of endless enjoyment or Sambhogakaya. While even transcending the non-awareness of dying and rebirth. As in, you have mastered it so are in control of where it goes and how it plays out. You are aware of your personal 12 links, so they don't rule you anymore, you utilize it for the sake of endless sentient beings. You are illuminating your own personal sphere or 12 links as explained above of inner experience and outer contact. Here's Wikipedia on dependent origination: Pratityamsautpada It's actually a really good presentation with lots of quotes from various texts as well as how it's treated in the different turnings of the wheel from Hinayana to Dzogchen.

Yes, but Infinite Love is not the goal of Buddhism, this is only one of the 4 immeasurables that are cultivated in most all spiritual traditions, but does not lead to liberation from unconscious recycling. Buddhism has a different and much more refined goal than merely being a bliss/peace bomb. Being a bliss/peace bomb is only one of the results of Buddhism, like it is in other traditions, but most traditions stop there. Buddhism goes further. This is what happens in most paths, they make a relative experience ultimate. No, Dharmakaya is not the ultimate reality, it's the ultimate insight. This is a common mistake. Dharmakaya is the realization of seeing the emptiness of dependent origination. It is considered a constant in the sense that dependent origination has always been empty, weather you see it or not, but that is dependent origination. It's not a self existing reality in the sense you are considering. There is a much subtler treatment of the term in Buddhism. Dharmakaya is basically a synonym for emptiness but in terms of the result of realizing emptiness. The experience of liberated bliss in this sense is the insight of the union of awareness and the emptiness of consciousness and things, which is a dependently arisen awareness. It's not a self arisen in an ultimate sense, but rather a relative sense. I understand this view very well as I used to write pages worth on it at E-Sangha. If a person actually has this realization, then they are transcending Theism, and I can see how one can use the concepts of Theism to self transcend. One can say, Brahma (creator), Vishnu (sustaner), Shiva (destroyer ) all happen in every moment and that the experience of their mutual emptiness is Brahman. But, these concepts are generally not treated as such in Hindu Theism. As in Shaivism, Abhinavagupta still gives the power of creation to the mysterious Shiva as a first cause. The difference between the Buddha approach is subtle. It's not just words and their meanings, it's the experience they lead to, or are expressing which is different as well. We also use Bhakti in Vajrayana, but we use it in a much clearer sense of understanding as we are experiencing devotion to the path of Bodhisattva compassion and the Buddhas that realize this. We are not emptying all our emotions and concepts into a non-conceptual ground, which just ends up hiding these impressions in a state of bliss for one to experience a long lived god realm through, but will turn out to bite us and become the basis for a lower incarnation because we haven't emptied the basis. The subtle differences are deep and true. You are taking up the Dharmkaya as a ground of being, instead of the awareness of the emptiness of dependent origination. Dharmkaya is not an ultimate truth, but rather an ultimate insight into things. Dharmakaya does not have inherent existence in Buddhism. It is the realization of the ultimate truth of things though, as in emptiness, then one experiences luminosity. We are not merging into light, we recognize that things still happen and that enlightenment is an endless journey and that light itself is not an ultimate ground of being either, but just an equally empty aspect of the sphere of reality.

Yes, awareness is non-conceptual, but still arises dependently. First of all, to be aware, you have to have consciousness and consciousness of an individual arises in each moment within the chain of 12 links of dependent origination as kind of a fermentation of the 5 main elements mixing and bubbling, which is a non-physical dimension. This happens so fast in each moment on such a complex level from non-physical through the physical, that there isn't really a first cause in the linear sense, it's more like a constant circle or sphere. In an enlightened being there is also the 12 links of dependent origination but it's flipped from an ignorant chain to an aware chain of inter-causation. Awareness is non-conceptual, but is still dependently originated and not an independent source of everything, it's only an independent source of your own experience of Samsara or Nirvana. But, since you are dependently originated as well... you can't say this proves solipsism. I fully agree!

Yes, but the union of luminosity and emptiness within you. It's the yoga or union of method and wisdom. Luminosity is merely the shining of awareness, it's the natural and intrinsic nature of consciousness that becomes aware of the empty nature of things. It's not really a oneness, as it takes two to even conceive of a one as opposed to many. Since there really is no ultimate many, there is no ultimate one either. It's all just relative and there are pitfalls of taking up the experience of a one as ultimate and self shining, which the Buddha warns about.

Thanks KoolAid900. Yes, I agree, everyone internally defines words and concepts individually. I've written pages on this some years ago. But, I'm saying as a tradition, Buddhist concepts manifests such clarity in terms of the state of mind of enlightenment that it's like the body of enlightenment itself, at best of course. Which is why we don't use the term oneness as it leads to lots of excuses and mis-understandings about the nature of things, and we use (pratyitsamutpada and shunyata) inter-dependence and emptiness instead, which leads to a much clearer understanding of whats going on within the experience of anything, from the mundane to the super mundane. Me neither. Yes, you are right. But, I'm saying that it's traditionally treated in Theism with this sense of mystery, as if it had a will of it's own outside of our karmas, as if it's manifestation was not merely our karmas coming to awareness. All I'm saying is that the Buddhist view de-mystifies the experience and gives insight to what's "actually" going on. I agree, and I've said that a Buddha can pop up anywhere, as long as the inner realization is the same, so is the result of that realization. But as far as a paradigm of expression of concepts and methods for the sake of Buddhahood goes... well... everyone has their process. Sure, the Buddha did it all the time, for the sake of healing the brain/body complex, for the sake of awakening other beings caught up in a formless state considering it an ultimate Self... etc. I'm sure he's still doing such things. Thanks K.A.! I appreciate that. It's nice to be loved on here every once in a while and actually have a discussion about the meaning of the things I say instead of merely the apparent form of it.

That's the Hinayana view, which is only one aspect of Buddhism and one that doesn't even really exist anymore. As Theravada is not even Hinayana and recognizes that the Buddha taught the concept of the Bodhisatta (Bodhisatva.) So, Nirvana is not the goal of Mahayana/Vajrayana or Dzogchen. Nirvana is actually merely a stepping stone. After one attains Nirvana, one must be awakened to take up the Bodhisattva path and actually have emotional involvement with the world, but from a liberated point of view. Sure, but what to do with that, and how to make it a vessel of ultimate benefit is what the Buddhist practice is all about. It's not just getting there, Buddhism also treats the state of enlightenment as part of the path and teaches the enlightened to be better in their enlightenment. It teaches how to manifest various tools or potentials that are beneficial for the sake of all sentient beings. Your understanding of the result of Buddhist practice is very different from mine.

Those aren't the type of Buddhists I'm interested in Ulises. That is your view and that is the type of Buddhism you associate Buddhism with. But that's not where I place my mind when I think of true Buddhism and true Buddhist practice. Those are just confused individuals who will use any excuse to gain power over other people. Just like when I think of true Christians I think of St. Francis, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila or Lisiuex, or Miester Ekhart... or the Desert Fathers who wrote the Philokalia. When I think of Islam, I don't even think of Muhamed. I think of Rumi, Mansur Mastana, Rabia, Hafiz, etc. Even though I value these peoples contributions to humanity. I don't think that they had the same level of realization as the Buddha. They had high realization, but not the same level of result body, before or after life. Not the same attainment of the "tools" for the sake of endless sentient beings. I have experiences, and these experiences show me that the goal of all spiritual traditions are not the same. These experiences go beyond being trapped in a meat suit. Most Shamanistic paths believe that there is a single agent, a single being of mysterious intelligence behind everything that you need to get in touch with and merge with. I am aware of this level of experience and used to interpret my spirituality under this assumption. I don't anymore. The Buddhist view is more refined and doesn't make intellectual, experiential, or emotional excuses for ignorance.

Bon predates Buddhism by thousands of years. Todays' Bon in Tibet though is just another form of Vajrayana/Dzogchen Buddhism with only some slight differences in form.

The ecstatic state is not the goal of Buddhism, it's only a side effect, or one of the results. The subtle differences are very real. The power to re-manifest in any realm with memory of the previous incarnation for the benefit of beings, the power to survive the pralaya, or big universal crunch (opposite of the big bang) with personal memory intact for the sake of endless beings and not be ignorantly recycled and re-expressed as an Amoeba or something or even a cat, dog or a sentient being without the power of self awareness. All sorts of different subtle things are the goal of Buddhism which are just not discussed in other traditions because of the difference in "view." Buddhism is not like all world religions. It's different, both relatively and ultimately. Buddhist practice and integration with the practices of the yogic techniques and visualizations for the sake of manifesting the 3 kayas is far from a head trip. Then do your thing! I prefer what the Buddha taught, it's more profound for me. I know the experience very well. But it's what you do with it, it's how conscious you are of it, and having the knowing, and the tools to make it truly beneficial, endlessly. The cosmos is deeply complex, and there are all sorts of pit stops and places to go. Ecstasy is not my goal, it's only one of the benefits of the goal of Buddhist practice.

Why not play it out in this forum. You guys are kind of like strangers that I can bounce things off of without much attachment. Also, I've done this before, quit drinking that is, for years at a time. Making a drastic change in my life has not been so hard for me as it is for most people, because my life has been full of change already. I'm not from some place, I wasn't raised in one place, and I haven't done just a few things in my life. Most people I've met are from some place, grew up with some of the same people. Not everyone, but most. For them change is difficult and challenging. It's not so much about will power as it is a decision based upon understanding the outcome of something. Drinking is just not taking me to where I want to go anymore. It was for a few years there in NYC. It was fun, exciting, interesting and I didn't have a problem with it before moving to NYC. But, now that I'm back in Florida, where I was 6 years ago when I didn't have a problem... it's not taking me to fun and exciting places... but quite the opposite, so what's the point? There are going to be times where it's going to be a challenge, of course. But, the more I think of the outcome, the less challenging it becomes. Also, why should I think that it's a hard thing to do? Or easy for that matter? It's neither really. It's just a change.

Yes, well at the same time, I was willing to be serious if he was. But yes, it was coming from 60 percent sarcasm and 40 percent trying to make a point.

More blind lunacy. Don't like it, don't read it, seriously. Get over yourselves. No more excuses... stop trying to change me. I just spit what I know and if you don't like it's smell, then look the other way. No one is forcing anyone to read anything. Look and judge your own actions, not mine!! It's you guys who ruin threads by responding and arguing... giving me more opportunities to clarify my point, which you don't like to begin with, so just let it go if you don't want me to clarify my point. Please don't make this thread about that too... SHIT! Please don't respond to this... just read, listen and let it go. Or don't read, but let go for sure. There is a strong opioid experience with me, very euphoric and a strong sense of spirituality that goes a long with that... for me. It's somewhat like being on heroin, I know because I've snorted it once, plus I've done Oxycontin, not in an abusive way... just did it a few times in my life. I like being high! I used to get it more from my spiritual practice. I still do, as I have a strong tendency towards happiness. Eh, it's complicated, but I know there is a problem concerning alcohol as it's progressed into something unmanageable over the years. There is a strong risk factor. But, I'm staying away from it... I just know I don't need it, I just want it. So, I'm just curbing that and drinking some soda instead with some heavy processed sugars to feed my liver what it's craving from the alcohol, and it's working... as a weening off it process.

I was being sarcastic. Man... so much is lost on you ralis. We exist from two very different dimensions of reality and interpretation. We are really from different planets or something. Seriously... not literally, though maybe?? Seriously though...

By the way... Ulises mentioned that it might have been his past life, having to do with Christian burnings.

:lol: :lol:

Ok ralis. Contemplate why you feel that way, it's subjective.