C T

Indeed sir! And in some regards, Vajrayana/Dzogchen, especially in the Preliminaries, encompasses both Hina- and Mahayana, hence it could be said that the above (re: the creation of the right causes) lays the foundation for the development of the outer samayas, which then cement the inner and secret ones. Remember the development and completion stages?

haha brilliant A7 - get wet in the dry eh?!! get wet in the dry? not before noon you would not discharge the spray-gun...

hello RyanO - thank you for the acknowledgement. Perhaps there could be a small misunderstanding that caused the observation you made above about the possibility of an element of denial and escape. As far as i can tell, (i could be biased here since Buddhism has been in the family for a few generations now), most of the Buddhists i know of, either as individuals or as organizations, are a very engaging bunch of people, and unless they have a deep appreciation of how precious life is, there would exist much difficulty in their convictions to contribute to the well-being of the less fortunate. I personally know of a Buddhist group in Malaysia called Kechara (pls google if you are interested to verify - somehow i do not seem to be able to paste any links lately) who are doing great things for the community, like setting up animal shelters, organizing weekly soup kitchens to look after the poor, creating awareness on the benefits of recycling, and engaging in a whole host of charitable and altruistic activities to benefit those (humans as well as animals, birds and fish!) who are in need. They really understand the gift of Life, which is why they do what they do, with little regard for themselves. But the funny thing is that at the end of the day, they are not really doing it exclusively for others, because they believe that to truly alleviate one's own suffering and to find happiness, the best way forward is to CREATE THE CAUSES for happiness to arise, and the easiest way to do that is to first bring happiness and comfort to others. This i understand is the core practice of compassion in action, and not just paying lip service, which many Buddhists do as well, undeniably. Apologies for being long-winded here RyanO.... All the best, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Its all good. (Am going to try to post a link below just to see if it works) -edit. http://www.kechara.com/ hey it works!! yay!

The Four Noble Truths of Fire. There is Fire. There are causes which brings about Fire. (If these causes are not understood, frustration could result). Pain and agony can end, not the Fire. In itself Fire is neither good or bad - understand this and one can be a master over fire. This is the Users' Guide to learning about Fire, and free oneself from the fear of it. Perhaps in ancient civilizations the above was a good four noble truth about Fire. Just because of a reference to a prevailing human condition all sorts of wrong views arose. It need not be so. One just has to see things from different perspectives, thats all.

Ra on horizon events take place without me watch the weather change...

I think that to have a realistic picture of (the majority) of Buddhists, one needs to look primarily at how most Buddhists conduct themselves, and what's central to their way of life. There is great emphasis right from the beginning of the path - one based on understanding, followed by the generation of intention, which is then followed by positive action. The Buddhist path is always to be adopted in degrees - not every Buddhist can follow thru to the 3rd stage, so they are encouraged to first of all have a good understanding, and train in this. This is the psychological bit in Buddhism. Once true understanding is attained, the generation of intention follows - this means cultivating an attitude of compassion, which then leads to the desire to be more accepting, more giving, more for-giving, more involved, so the whole being becomes more about thinking of others, becoming more empathetic in other words. To do this, Buddhism put in place certain representative reminders, of which Chenrezig, or Avalokiteshvara is prime, and if one were to look at the image here (http://www.purifymind.com/Chenrezig_Thanka.jpg) one can see the Four Arms. This is quite significant. Each arm symbolizes the Four Immeasurables: Immeasurable Loving Kindness, Immeasurable Compassion, Immeasurable JOY, and Immeasurable Equanimity. This second aspect is the aspiration part of the path. The third stage is the practical aspect of the path, where the motivation to make others happy and joyful creates the right conditions for one's own happiness and joyous disposition. Seeing this deeply, it becomes an awareness that takes root, thus infusing one's daily activities and interactions with a sense of having done something beneficial. This is something that all TRUE Buddhists try to be conscious of. So you see, there is a very systematic approach in Buddhism towards creating Joy. It very much minimizes the kind of joy that is self-centered, haphazard, and without true understanding, and therefore, generally disappears very quickly. Its really not that metaphysical or esoteric - and makes a lot of sense, dont you agree? There is an interesting illustration about the difference between thinking of one's happiness first before that of others. Two groups of humans - one was sent to hell, and the other was sent to heaven. The group that was sent to hell were all miserable, sufffffering endlessly, despite the fact they were lavished with the finest banquet day in and day out. They were all sat across from one another at this massive banquet table with the best cuisine ever, yet they were all starving to death, all because they had no idea how to reach the morsels of food, since tied to each of their arms were 6-foot long wooden ladles that created all sorts of problems, making it impossible to feed themselves, and so they starved. In heaven the group had the exact same condition yet they were not encumbered by it, ate heartily, because they immediately realized that the fastened ladles were not obstacles - all they had to do was to feed someone across the table, instead of trying in vain to feed oneself. It was not that difficult after all. This is just a very simple story. But it does present a basic view of what it means to sometimes try creating conditions where generosity can be practiced, for the greater good of all. This is quite a central theme in Buddhism, which definitely is not morbid in any way. Blessings.

Oh?

This appears to be a weighty declaration. May i ask why you addressed the OP as 'brother' in an earlier post, and then conjure up such a bold remark? A person of contrast... might be a good thing. Who is to say...

Heruka - also known as Chakrasamvara, not Vajrapani. Vajrapani is another name for Vajrasattva. Can you verify the source where it says Heruka is the oldest tantra deity? It would be helpful to obtain some clarity on this. Thanks. As far as i know, Heruka is also a reference to a group of deities, and not restricted to a singular one. Of this group, the emanation as Chakrasamvara is most commonly adopted in tantric practices. Basically those whose sadhana include the practice of the union of bliss and emptiness could incorporate Heruka, significantly because 'He'(pronounced HEI) is the nature of emptiness of all phenomena or dharmas, present here and now, 'Ru', which means the wind that blows thru a channel, which is like the nature of emptiness of all beings, and 'Ka', the union of bliss and emptiness. Looking at it this way, Heruka is quite helpful to further one's specific practice, and not at all ghoulish. Any practice that one adopts, be it that of mantras, visualizations, zazen, vipassana/shamatha meditations, chi gong, or even the practice of not practicing, has at its core the purpose of transformation, or transcendence, to change from one state to another. What is proliferated in Tibetan Buddhism is no different - a myriad of techniques employing all sorts of skillful means to elevate the practitioner out of misery, to whatever degree that may be. To get caught up in the probing of all the different means and forms is, i think, missing the whole point. Any 'thing', viewed in the correct perspective, regardless of appearance, may be used as a source to transform one's mind, even so-called 'hideous' emanations that may present themselves to beginners, who then after years of training, will come to befriend these reflections of his/her own psyche, and eventually transform them into the more peaceful counterparts. Further to this, as the practice deepens, the practitioner eventually sees beyond both peaceful and wrathful, god and demon, high and low, in and out, all plays of opposites, leading to a state beyond fear, conflict and discrimination, one of calm-abiding, or absolute equanimity, which is buddhahood, or awakened-hood. This aim is not an exclusive Buddhist club membership thing - its attainable by anyone who is willing to see beyond their own 'small' selves, and overcome their puny prejudices and weak tendencies. Much blessings.

Browsing mantras on YT and found this- I thought it was quite remarkable, and wanted to share it with all of you! Please enjoy, and share it with your friends too! For those who prefer orthodox Tibetan chants, here's one that is very authentic - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsgkM0jG28 Blessings!

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche made similar observations. He says, " There are two types of mindfulness: deliberate and effortless. By starting out with the mindfulness of deliberate attention, the practitioner can make a clear distinction between being distracted or not. Effortless mindfulness is of course possible if you happen to be one of the people of the highest calibre - the instantaneous type of person - who does not really need to go through the path. However, for most other people, especially in the Mahamudra system, the mindfulness of deliberate attention is essential in the beginning. Otherwise, by relying only on effortless mindfulness, you may not even notice whether you are distracted or not. Even worse, you may convince yourself that you are never distracted. Rather than this, it is much better to practice deliberate mindfulness even though it is subtly conceptual, and gradually progress to effortless mindfulness. In the Mahamudra teachings, you often find the phrase 'original innate nature'. This is none other than buddha nature. The training is simply to become used to that, whether you call it Mahamudra, Madhyamika or Dzogchen. These are all different words for the same natural state. But to train, you must first of all be introduced to, and have then recognized the view. In Mahamudra, once the practitioner has recognized the view, he or she takes mindfulness as the path; it is a way of training in that view. If mindfulness is lost, then he/she is led completely astray into the 'black dissipation' of ordinary habitual patterns. Black dissipation means one forgets all thought of practice and simply deviates into ordinary activities. All practice is left behind. So, either we remember the view and sustain it (remain undistracted), or the practice is destroyed. We need to know when we are distracted. Discursive thought is distraction, but once we recognize the essence of the thought, we arrive at non-thought. A quote from The Rain of Wisdom by Jamgon Lodro Thaye says: "Within complexity I discovered dharmakaya; within thought I discovered non-thought." A person of the highest capacity can immediately arrive at effortless mindfulness. This is someone who possesses the continuity of former training from the life before this, who has been reborn with a very strong aptitude for this type of practice. Needless to say, most people do not belong to this category. Most of us are not of the highest capacity, so there is no way around having to remind ourselves of the view by deliberately being mindful. That which goes astray is simply our attention. Our mind becomes distracted, and that which brings us back to the view is called 'deliberate mindfulness'. In the same way, if you want the light to come on in a room, a conscious act is necessary. You must put your finger on the switch and press it; the light does not turn itself on. In the same way again, unless a beginner reminds him/herself determinedly to remember the view, the recognition of mind-essence never occurs. The moment we notice we have been carried away, we think, "I have wandered off". By recognizing the identity of who has been distracted, you automatically arrive back in the view. The reminder is nothing more than that. This moment (of recognition) is like pressing the light-switch. Once the light is on, you do not have to keep pressing the switch. After a while, we may again forget and are carried away. At that point, we must reapply deliberate mindfulness." (Apologies for the length of the post. Its all relevant.)

Yes 'source' may well be too broad a label, but one bears in mind this forum has a wide base, so many different layers of intelligence. For convention's sake, other labels could well be considered - for eg, Ground of Being, Nature of Mind, the Tao, the One, Supreme Intelligence, God, the Eternal Spring, the Fountain of Immortality, Brahman, the Full Void, and these do not even make up half of all the different terms that's out there. Just like you can say orange in several different languages... At the end of the day, descriptions are mere fingers. The key point that i wanted to convey was the possibility of a lack of insight (ignorance) leading to the inability to accept that one is so much more than all the knowledge and intelligence that one possesses, which also then leads to a stifling of potential, or even stagnation. When this happens, it becomes rather difficult to recognize that one exists always in relationship, just like the river and its two opposing banks, or that which lies between the yin and the yang. When a choice is made to pick just one aspect as the main focus, it always bring the other two into play, i think. Focus on the Yin, and the Yang rises. Focus on the Empty middle, and the other two arises. (You used the term "Preference of Will", which is the same). What do we do then? Perhaps if we just let go of the focus altogether, maybe then we can see how there is really no outer and inner reality? I dont know... its worth a thought anyway.

Yes thank you Ms Kate, for graciously adding the human touch to the analogy! Its great! The river declares its independence with loud authority, until such time it merges with the ocean... and the ego is the same. If only while it flows as a river it also realizes its potential, then therein lies acceptance, which leads to truthful acknowledgement that it is indeed unseparated from its source. If the acknowledgement is made, it will still retain its identity yet at the same instant it recognizes that all the while, it is also transforming, yielding not to a greater power, or a separate, outer reality, but merely surrendering to itself. If i can fully tune in to my own words here, i believe the struggle between 'mine/inner' and 'not mine/outer' will diminish, and integration can happen - right this minute. When it does, do you believe that the dualistic notions of outer and inner will cease to have a relevance? I do. Till then, keep flowing....

It is not easy to distinguish a river without also acknowledging the banks on each side. While it looks as if there are 3 distinct 'things' at play, namely the left/right bank, and the water flowing in between, in essence there is only one whole. Take away any one of the 3 and it ceases to be a river. Having said that, even with a missing quality, its potential to be a river can never be denied. Perhaps its not the distinctions themselves that are illusory... it only appears so when one denies the potential of each distinct organism/matter to merge and form into something else, creating new meanings along the way, yet retaining its individual identity.

and walk like a crab or dance like an Egyptian Saturday night chills...

My grandfather, a Sri Lankan, was a Buddhist scholar, an elder in the Singapore Buddhist Association where he teaches Buddhism, a tailor, an amateur boxer, and funnily enough, he was also a much sought after Indian Astrologer, something which he learnt from his guru, also a devout, orthodox Buddhist. I remember him saying that his father and his father's father were all Buddhists, yet there in his prayer room were 'holy' pictures of the various Hindu Deities, and the Ruler Deities of the various planets like Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto and so on. Three times a day he would offer prayers to Lord Buddha, Rahu, Kethu and all these other deities. I dont think he ever saw that one was somehow more superior over the other - distinct, yes, but he also saw above this and realized how they sort of complement one another in the grand scheme. I was extremely fond and proud of him, still am, and i miss him so. If he was still alive, he would probably put his boot to Alwayson's behind...just jk!

Has anyone ever had the feeling that the perception of inner/outer, the gap so to speak, gets pretty apparent, even intensely apparent, when needs arise to stake claims on what we assume to be exclusively ours, and then set about proclaiming this, or worse, defending 'our property'? When this attitude is prevalent, it becomes a challenge to remain equanimous, almost impossible. My house, my land, my belongings, my curtains(??), my thoughts, my experience, blah blah... At the end of the day, what is truly ours anyway? Not a single of these assumed rights can be carried to the beyond. Maybe there is wisdom in 'renunciation'... when all has been renounced, including and especially the attachments to this 'I and mine', i am just wondering here if outer/inner matter as much. I think the more one is willing to renounce, the closer we return to the center of the mandala, where separation does not exist, or better still, where existence itself does not exist. Is this the path that leads to non-dual abiding? I am aware what some diehard existentialists will think when they read this, but its ok. They will have plenty of time to catch up, if not this in this existence, perhaps the next one. Of course there are so many levels in which we can learn to 'give up', or better still, to learn how to 'stand under' certain truths. This requires enormous humility and courage. It also demands a willingness to be vulnerable, alas a quality not many are able to integrate as a vital part of spiritual growth. But when the mind clings to nothing, and the body needs are few, then being vulnerable can actually be the very thing that makes one strong. Just pondering...

I couldnt help but burst out :lol: !! Sorry! (My morning's made anyway ) Thanks!

Hi SZ - thanks for the info. Good to know.

don't look up down there ye men who work the sewers pedestrians walk by...

Sounds pretty advanced this LB ritual... would you have time to expand a little on this? (for i know not what it means). Also what does going full blast entail? Thanks Cloud. (Curiosity got the better of me!)

So true! Well said A7. i just want to add some thoughts here... When certain fundamental principles, beliefs, ideas, philosophies are rejected, often it becomes quite a task to understand how others could find reason in those very things we have pushed aside. Perhaps when we can begin to view the uniqueness of others with their very individualized blueprints, aspects of which may very well differ from ours, and learn to accept this basic difference, it might actually be more beneficial in the wider scope of things. At the very least, this allows for the seeds of understanding and kinship to germinate. On many levels, i see 'letting go' and 'letting be' to be more conducive towards healing ourselves, and more importantly, re-aligning the distorted views we may have of others. This realization comes after years of personal struggle and losing many friends (even two is too many IMO). The focus now, for me, is to always try to change my own self/views first, and empathize with others as much as i can. This releases my burden and also the burden in which i perceive others may have. In this manner, it becomes almost joyful to relate, because differences that exist mostly in my own imagination can now easily be waived, and the bond formed becomes one based on common ideals. In this there is no room for conflict.

and cave-art alive... seen by those with clear vision bright magnetic fields!

Hi Kate, Absolutely probable that when the strings/chains begin to tug, there arises ripples of discontent, whereby habitual reflexes kick in and the tendencies of not wanting to dance to the puppeteer's tune become suddenly more apparent. Perhaps it is this natural rebelliousness that throws me/us off the resting centre, following which the outer, in the words of S-curve, then appears out of sync? Just wondering... So those who become more spiritually sensitive, either thru working hard at it, spending years trying to create a seamless connection between the outer and inner world, could it be that these individuals have, in the process, learnt to become more adept at adapting to the constant flux and flow of conflict? I think conflict arises when we fail to recognize that ultimately the puppeteer is none other than our very own selves. If one can learn to fully accept this truth, then in actual fact, a lot of grief and hair-pulling can be discounted, and those that see it will save themselves years of hard spiritual labor. I contend that maturity(or leaning in?) allows for the acceptance of the perpetual duel between the puppet and its master/mistress, and this acceptance, IMO is the key towards the realization of no-mind. For as long as one refuses this acknowledgement, no matter how subtle the degree of this refusal, it creates the conditions/causes for the ripples of discontent to arise, and sadly, this is what leads to duality, and the perpetuation of 'suffering'. I am contemplating that perhaps in actuality there is no inner and outer. Could this false distinction be a creation of sorts to compensate for my own ignorance and silly whims, and also from the dire need to sometimes obsessively analyze the world, which then compounds this idiosyncratic view of separateness? More meditation fuel here - ha! Forgive if this makes no sense... maybe i too, am going bonkers! ... ... ... thanks to A7, i think this is a gem of a topic! Wonderful insights from contributors thus far! I can feel it gathering momentum... really looking forward enthusiastically to hear the views, thoughts and insights of more members.