Vajrahridaya

You come across as a soft hearted and soft spoken person, and that's what I feel about you. These are good qualities. ok He went to a Pureland, which is a realm and dimension that stays constant due to the constant need of endless Samsarins to be free from Samsara. Within a process of constant change and transformation, but not as a static void, as that does not self exist either according to Buddhadharma, but arises simultaneous with content. The experience of the void in meditation is merely a yogin's attempt at suppressing through intense focus, all impressions latent in the vastness of their unconscious. There is no inherent void either. It's really just an experience, as well as a logical inference, but without inherent existence. The concepts you are engendering here are very familiar to me and sound much like Kashmir Shaivism, or Bhairava, the deep void! Considered the absolute truth of existence, if you think that, this will be your home at the end of the cosmic eon. Yes, there are many paths within Buddhadharma to liberation. The way you are expressing Tao seems to correlate to some sort of essence, or substratum of everything. For me, Tao just means dependent origination/emptiness and nothing more, nothing less, because there is nothing more or less. There are many methods in Buddhadharma. Now, I know you're talking about some inherent essence. I can't agree with you. Sounds like your talking about God?

First off, you already knew all this. and, I don't believe in self delusion. Also, please be more aware of your own personal baggage over mine.

Dependent origination means things arise relatively, without an ultimate source of all existence, as in, without a primal cause, neither transcendent, nor eminent. So, the "Tao" (way) of things is that they don't ultimately exist, and that the cosmos is just a process of infinite potential without origin and without ending, cycling over and over again, in endless ways. If that's what you got from my sentence that you quoted, then yes. Is that what you got? p.s. By the way.. love the Bear rene... it's cute.

I think your misunderstanding of me is as equal as my lack of understanding you. Oh well... So, nothing about the information I provided? By the way... I have not been formally trained in how to teach anything. I didn't even finish high school and I'm completely self educated, aside from spiritual guidance from Hindu Tantric masters then a Buddhist Tantric master, but that's on an entirely different level from the scholastic sense of an education. I was raised in impoverished areas of the US and my expression can be a little rough around the edges, as well as obnoxious, because this is how I survived the many ordeals I've been through, including homelessness. So, I do apologize if I come off as rude. It's not my intention. This has nothing to do with Buddhism, and everything to do with me as a person, who is working through karmas of all sorts.

Ohhhh, so many lumps on my head... oooooooohhhhhh!

Yes, like Hatha Yoga in the West.

Hmmm, that's very interesting... I've had intuitions along these same lines myself. I'd might like to do a doctorate on this myself if I ever get my ass to school! In some lineages of Taoism it seems that the Tao is more likened to a process rather than an ultimate ground of being. Unless one would think of process as ground of being, but then one would have to recognize it's ultimate emptiness of self nature in a non-conceptual/conceptual state of recognition, therefore the Tao does not ultimately exist, only relatively so.

I'm down with processes. Kindly explain "Completion stage"? As I've not done it in this lifetime, only last lifetime, so I can't really make a clear comment on it, only from the point of view of the experiential gist of it as I started doing it automatically during my sadhana before I even read about it and I have memories of learning about it in a previous lifetime. It has to do with yoking the quality of Buddhahood projected in front of you during "generation stage" into you, as your manifestation, during "completion stage." It has to do with integrating the intention of yoking form and emptiness with the experience of yoking form and emptiness on physical, and energetic levels of one's personal being. Buddhist practices all have to be predicated upon the "right view" which is the view-less view of dependent origination/emptiness. You have to have an intellectual understanding at least, first and foremost, then of course into an experiential taste of it's insight. Otherwise it won't bring about the same result as lets say a monotheistic view would towards the practice. This is why lineage and tradition is very important, in any sense, though there can be some mixing and matching, it has to be done seemlessly so that the core teaching is not adulterated. As Buddhism is not based upon belief in a single "one" that all things are, or a single "source" behind all manifestation, other than infinite minds co-creating. The view as expounded by the Buddhas has to be understood for the practices to work as Buddhahood doesn't come about by just sitting around and emptying the mind of concepts, only formless bliss realms come about through this practice, which is high in Samsara, but it's still not Nirvana.

I make that claim? Really? I'm just saying, what if it's not a myth? Then your argument is null and void. Ok, I can say Warlocks then too, which are male witches and no, not all of them are out for their own personal gain. Plenty of them are though. Of course I don't believe everything I read, and I have cross referenced and reference my own experience as well. I can recognize bogus arguments coming from you very quickly. Curiosity is what brought me to the Buddhadharma, and curiosity is what brought me to delve into it's experiential validity. It could be, but all I have to go on are your posts towards me. So, within that spectrum of criteria... yes... you are negative to me, within my own subjective experience of you.

Again, everything is the negative side of things for you. Padmasambhava was not out killing Bon practitioners. There were Buddhists who did go to that extreme, but I don't see any teaching of Padmasambhava justifying that. Yes, there are a such thing as black magicians, even today... people that can poison people with their minds and also wield curses through mantras and incantations. I also believe that there is a such thing as witch craft and I've experienced it first hand. You, I think, do not. p.s. It's become increasingly clear how unhappy of a person you must be and how negative a view you must have of human kind, with all the ways you justify your negative views of things. At least, that is all I've seen of you. You choose what you want to believe based upon your depth or lack of insight.

You see, you don't see how your projection effects your interpretation. You could say the same about me. Which is fine. Before Padmasambhava there were Bon black magincians and all sorts of wars going on in Tibet. Yes, there are evil minded spirits that need to be subdued here and there and to me, Padmasambhava did just that. To you, he was the evil one. Your view is a glass is half empty, mine is the glass is half full. He didn't, so there. I have his life story. The way you interpret it is entirely your own creation, and not objective, but very subjective.

Buddhas are not sexist by nature of being a Buddha. Other people, who might have interpreted the teachings into their region and time might have brought forth that element, interpreters not necessarily being Buddhas. Yes, as in to understand the fundamentals of the universe only comes through realization of dependent origination/emptiness and not through positing an independent origination/consciousness at the source of things, which is what all other religions teach, besides some forms of Taoism. So yes, Buddhism is for the most part, the odd one out. All major religions posit a truly self existing soul of the universe, Buddhism is pretty much the only one that does not. Sure, mostly started around the beginning of the agricultural area when we stopped migrating. Buddhist practice is meant to bring a harmony between mind, body and energy. Sure, the nature of dependent origination/emptiness and the incredibly profound insight into everything this engenders through the practices revealed by a master of this insight. Sure, in a sense... but that's always variable. As the different vehicles to Buddhahood have different tenet systems depending upon the needs of an individual or the needs of a particular human society. The Buddhas teachings known as the Hinayana vehicle have different rules of conduct than Mahayana and Vajrayana is different as well, and so is Dzogchen. There have been female Tantric masters who attained liberation while being a consort of a king, by turning their perception around and using teachings given to them by a Tantric Master to turn the sexual experience into an inner fire of purification that turned them into Buddhas. There have been Buddha butchers as well, but I think only through the Vajra-vehicle, and only by them turning their act into a way of liberating the animal mind stream into a human mind-stream through deep insight. So really, there is only karma and there is no bad or good karma, really, only practically. Like going around kidnapping kids for ransom would practically speaking be "wrong livelihood." Due to the causes and conditions surrounding that choice of livelihood would make it impossible for that person to attain Buddhahood while undertaking such a job. Just like, being a hitman or hitwomen, or assassin of some sort would be a job that would make it extremely hard for that person to attain Buddhahood, maybe not impossible, but generally speaking... the causes and conditions surrounding that job, or karmas, would be coming from a contracted view of things and not an expanded view of things. If you want to think in terms of good and bad karma, think in terms of good karma reflects seeing inter-connectivity and bad karma comes from seeing only immediate gain at the expense of others. Ok good! But you seem to have been carrying these views around for a while, for as long as I've known you. It's just, you don't seem to me to be coming across as a person who is asking with an open mind, bur rather a defensive state of mind, which is messing with my ability to speak openly with you. If I am completely wrong, than I apologize.

Your idea of it's behavior comes from a limited demographic for information. There were many, many Buddhas. In my practice I more focus on Padmasambhava as well as my lineage teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche as my Buddha and ideal. The Buddha is not deified, his image is exemplified as a human being, just like us, who realized complete freedom and total wakefulness. So again... you are only seeing what you want to see. You seem very stern in your approach too. I feel like I'm wasting my fingers, but others will read this. So, maybe not. Mostly in Vajrayana. One of the most practiced forms of Vajrayana these days seems to be Chod, of which there are a few forms, but the most practiced form is that of Machig Labdron, a female Buddha from about 1,000 years ago. There is Gomadevi, a female Buddha who attained the Jalus, who I have a personal connection with who was a Princess and one of the 21 Indian Panditas (female masters). I have a transmission of her teaching as terma (revealed treasure). Anyway, there are tons and tons, both from India and Tibet in the Vajrayana tradition. Padmasambhava taught a few women into Buddhahood, women who are well known in the tradition. It was. But, the Buddha made lots of people angry when he created the first order of Nuns and also trumped the caste system by letting any caste level into his following. Basically he transcended many of the social limitations of the time. A women wielding that much power probably would have been killed on the spot, ignorantly of course, but just the same. Positive. He allowed women to remove themselves from the role of child barer and house maker, and gave them the teachings to remove themselves from psychological suffering all together, of which was a great success. He also created a layman teaching for those that wanted to stay within regular society but practice the teachings to liberation integrating them with their regular life. Yes he did, and he showed so and others did so as well.

Your take on things is very skewered. I think it's more your mind that likes to see evil and interpret things as evil. In historical Buddhism there are plenty of examples of female Buddhas. As you are a glass is half empty type of person, a cynic, you would only see the negative things that human beings have done. Padmasambhava only re-interpreted Bon.

That would be your understanding of the universe and not a Buddhist one. So, Buddhism points beyond this "one" that manifests, re-absorbs and recycles us to be re-manifest without memory of the prier, again and again. According to Buddhist cosmology, you are talking about Samsara, which is what we want to master and turn into the experience of Nirvana. So if we we're truly "one"... then there would be no possibility of escape from this ignorance recycling process. But, the Buddha revealed that we are not trapped by this "oneness" (even if one attains a blissful place in this one) at all, and that liberation is possible. There are lineages of Taoism that don't turn the "Tao" into a substratum like it appears you are doing. But rather just "the way" of mutually dependent arisings. Just as the term universe is really just a term used to conveniently say the process of everything. So the term Tao should not bring up a static idea of oneness, as if it truly existed. Some lineages of Taoism I do believe lead to Buddhahood. But, not all spiritual traditions lead to the same place. Just like not all roads lead to Rome.

Kate, consider this an education, so that you can expand past your limited concepts concerning Buddhism. If you are interested in doing so that is. Monotheism means one God that created everything. So, Buddhism is not that. Shakyamuni also said that he was not a god, but merely awake. Actually, there are many Buddha ideals in Buddhism, including many, many female Buddhas. Shakyamuni was just the fire starter, during a time when a women wouldn't even have been heard, so it's only practical that it be a man. Shakyamuni did create an order of Nuns and did ignore the caste system and said that anyone could attain Buddhahood. There are some questionable occurrences in history concerning sexism in Buddhism, but most of that has been ironed out as women gain more power. The Buddhas were never sexist, only some popular interpreters who gained prominence in certain regions at a certain time, or when politics mixed with Buddhism, etc. There is no ultimate truth in Buddhism, which is what makes it different from other traditions that state that there is an ultimate truth, or ultimate existence to everything. The term natural is an excuse to stay bound by habit patterns developed by ignorant humans over thousands and thousands of years? It's all very natural that we are destroying ourselves, isn't it? It's all so very natural that we all make war with each other out of fear of loss, now isn't it? So, the Buddha introduced a different level of nature that one could embrace for the sake of positive transformation. If you use the term "natural" as an excuse for a static concept about something, then you're lost. There is no static concept of sin and evil in Buddhism. There is only karma. Action and reaction, which goes with intention and the reaction of intention on the one who holds it. So really, all your static ideas concerning Buddhism really hold no truth outside of your own personal interpretation of things and they spring from a lack of being educated in the teachings of Buddhism. Basically, you are only seeing what you want to see, instead of how things actually are.

I think if you're going to compare a Buddhist system with the energetic forms of Taoism, one would have to do it with the Vajrayana system of Buddhism. There are Chinese versions of Vajrayana that are not as well known as Chan/Zen, but which have the same kind of practices to one degree or another as the versions you find in Tibet, Burma, Nepal, and Bhutan.

Vajrayana is the secret mantra vehicle or vehicle of transformation where one can attain Buddhahood in a very short period of time during our age. It's basically what Tibetan Buddhism is and there are many lineages and many branches of practice. It's origin is India but it was moved to Tibet in the 8 or 900's. Today's Bon is basically Vajrayana under the name of Bon. The method of visualization in the front is only a beginning practice and actively engages the mind in color, focus on an enlightened being, and then becoming that which one focuses on. It's a very practical practice that increases intelligence and the senses, as well as transforming the mind into the mind of a Buddha. What you were shown was Generation stage, and there is still Completion stage, then there is more... it's a process.

I wonder why there are Buddhist Masters in the mountains who have attained Immortality than? Also the Jalus in Dzogchen is Immortal, even though the physical body disapears from the view of the vast majority of beings on Earth, it's still there. This is not true for Vajrayana which gives tons of focus on Method, and there are deities of fortune or abundance that one can focus practice on, and place? As in the place you do a practice? This is not true for Vajrayana which recognizes the differences and gives slightly different ways of posturing for females and males, as well as different order of yogic movements.

There's no attachment (no-non-attachment), total acceptance, though also the manifestation of total compassion, so every action is in alignment for betterment of all beings within a very vast scope of perspective, living from a state of super-normal sense of inter-connection. There is no question of ego or not ego for a Buddha. The 4 immeasurables have already been perfected even prier to Buddhahood. These are infinite 1) loving-kindness or benevolence, 2) compassion, 3) sympathetic joy, and, 4) equanimity. Buddhahood is perfection of the union between luminosity and emptiness. Also the union, or yoking (yoga) of method and wisdom. There would be no sense of gluttony, or personal pride in a Buddha.

I agree, it's about relaxing and transforming, or liberating at the source of it within, and in that way you actually create a healing field. I've found that by maintaining an inner stance of bliss, or spiritual joy, this is done very easily. But on another level, you also want to know how to block unwanted "guests" on a perceivable psychic level. I've been dealing with this for 11 years and I've not mastered anything concerning it.

The protection rituals are good for invoking protecting deities as well as the inner focus and energy to deal with the psychic stuff on your own. It's really about attention and the ability to feel and push out unwanted "guests" I think.

Wow, that's fu*#d up. How that could be condoned by any true Buddhist is beyond me??

Been to Siddhaloka, Indraloka and Naraka. I've also seen various deities both Hindu and Buddhist in and out of meditation. A Pureland is harder to get to than these, and I have not been to a pureland, but I don't doubt their existence based upon these and other experiences. Also the only Buddhist deities I've seen are the ones who attained Jalus (Rainbow body) which is an attainment easier for us samsarins to get in touch with than those that only exist in the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya levels. I've not actually seen a Buddha of the Sambhogakaya level yet as far as I can tell as supposedly it takes a Bodhisattva of a higher caliber to see that deeply. Only some of those Buddhas who have attained Jalus have I seen directly, and it was only during special Dzogchen retreat or transmission while in a state higher than my normal capacity.