Jeff

Some more on the light (and being full of it)... Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light. (‭Luke‬ ‭11‬:‭35-36‬ KJV) The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. (‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭34-36‬ KJV)

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying with your quoted text that you don't consider John as a valid gospel? Also, on offending by eating flesh and drinking blood, all of the gospels say the same thing, so I don't understand the why the author's comments are relevant. See below... And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (‭Matthew‬ ‭26‬:‭19, 26-28‬ KJV) And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. (‭Mark‬ ‭14‬:‭22-24‬ KJV) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭19-20‬ KJV)

My post to Spotless was more about differenting what kinds of things can happen or are possible. The question was real ascension or metaphor? Most traditions and current teachers would say metaphor. What would you say? The bible states... And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (‭Genesis‬ ‭5‬:‭24‬ KJV) And also... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭1-9‬ KJV) The spiritual process is about realizing that "true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world".

Fun analogy... Clarity (or minimal obstructions) would seem to be the key, heading towards that zero resistance...

I apologize that I made an incorrect assumption regarding your perspective on Jesus. That is why I asked the question. I would also agree that the teaching of Jesus were sort of wrapped in an institutional framework by the Roman empire a few hundred years later. Finally, I was not attempting to create any argument with you regarding the nature of any teacher. My point was more that those who consider themselves awakened or enlightened still operate from a relative perspective when operating in the world. With such perspective (or framework) they tend to translate into their own terms or experience. As an example, the bible talks about a realization of direct ascension (or going light body), as does traditions like Bon or Dzogchen. The same is true of many Daoist immortal concepts. Is such the real thing or a metaphor? Most current teachers are more in the metaphor camp.

With your description of "supposed existence", I assume that implies that you do not believe that he actually existed? Could you give me an example of such an awakened and enlightening teacher that is removed (or beyond) the relative that has spoken on Jesus? And how does one know that they are beyond the relative, and not just "steeped" in the understanding of their own relative consciousness? Thanks.

While I am not trying to defend institutional Christian church understanding of Jesus, the new covenant (or change) that Jesus made in the world is supported in many places in the gospels. Here is an example of the shift that his coming brought about... John 14:10-17 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask[c] anything in My name, I will do it.15 “If you love Me, keep[d] My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

What is a "high biblical scholar" and how would they be any different than "the enlightening ones that are needed to tell us what Jesus was actually referring to"? All such speaking is based upon their relative perspective.

Ok, if you don't like Paul, which gospels do you accept... Luke 22:19-20 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 5:34-39 34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? 35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. 36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. 37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. 38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. 39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. Or does one just prefer the old wine...?

A few words for you consideration on the nature of the law and what Jesus brought... Hebrews 8: 5-6, 12-13 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. ... 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. The new covenant is the also known as the new wine that cannot be poured into an old wineskin without breaking the wineskin. The laws (or lower sutra like understanding) were refined.

Thank you MH. This is worth repeating.... "Flow everywhere, in the vast and limitless expanse, abolishing all boundaries."

Welcome!

Seems like your versions are pretty different than what I have read... http://www.purifymind.com/LankavataraSutra.htm Thanks for pointing it out. Here are a couple more on the mind and phenomena for you... The Ārya-gaganagañjaparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states: Whoever skillfully realizes all phenomena as pure, that is the natural luminosity of the mind… Because the mind is naturally luminous, therefore it is never afflicted. The Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā states: Due to matter being naturally luminous, it is pure and non-afflicted…due to omniscience of all aspects being naturally luminous, it is pure and non-afflicted.

Hi Ti, I have found the Lankavatara sutra to be incredibly accurate, one could even say sublime, it just needs to be seen in context. Could you please point out where the sutra has an entire chapter on meat, my versions have no such section? The sutra is generally accepted and in particular is often a base document for Yogacara and Zen schools of buddhism. The phrase "universal mind" is an english translation, but the concept of the "mind system" is consistent with all buddhist schools. Since you have been more interested in Dzogchen ways of describing it, here you go on the mind (system)... The Śrī-jñānavajrasamuccaya states: Whatever arises from luminosity, that is called “mind,” “intellect" and “consciousness,” that is the foundation of all phenomena, the two stages are realized from affliction and purification… In order to explain the reality of all phenomena [gnas lugs], whatever arises from luminosity is dharmatā, the dhātu of naturally pure luminosity. Since a nonconceptual knowing awareness arises at the same time as the subtle vāyu, the mind [citta, sems] is the basis of all… The reality of that inner consciousness, nonconceptual innate dharmatā, is the nature of luminosity, empty and not a self… The reality of luminosity is an unfabricated mind which arises from it different from generic consciousness… luminosity is the ultimate truth… based on luminosity, the ultimate true state, the path is traversed rapidly… luminosity is dharmatā, suchness, pure like space, great bliss, unceasing, immaculate, peace, ultimate, mahāmudra itself. Mahāmudra of union is attained from luminosity that is very free from proliferation… Natural luminosity is totally pure, immaculate, like the element of space… Best, Jeff

In the context of the Lankavatara sutra, everything that exists (or has the potential to exist) is an aspect of the mind system (including the concept of the body). Here is another passage that gets to the same point... Entering upon the eighth stage, with the "turning-about" at the deepest seat of consciousness, the Bodhisattva will become conscious that he has received the second kind of Transcendental-body (Manomayakaya). The transition from mortal-body to Transcendental-body has nothing to do with mortal death, for the old body continues to fuction and the old mind serves the needs of the old body, but now it is free from the control of mortal mind. There has been an inconceivable transformation-death (accintya-parinama-cyuti) by which the false-imagination of his particularised individual personality has been transcended by a realisation of his oneness with the universalised mind of Tathagatahood, from which realisation there will be no recession. With that realisation he finds himself amply endowed with all the Tathagata's powers, psychic faculties, and self-mastery, and, just as the good earth is the support of all beings in the world of desire (karmadathu), so the Tathatagatas become the support of all beings in the Transcendental World of No-form. Additionally on the point... This transcendental body is not a product of the elements and yet there is something in it that is analogous to what is so produced; it is furnished with all the differences appertaining to the world of form but without their limitations; possessed of this "mind-vision-body" he is able to be present in all the assemblages in all the Buddha-lands. Just as his thoughts move instantly and without hindrance over walls and rivers and trees and mountains, and just as in memory he recalls and visits the scenes of his past experiences, so, while his mind keeps fuctioning in the body, his thoughts may be a hundred thousand yojanas away. In the same fashion the trasncendental personality that experiences the Samadhi Vajravimbopama will be endowed with supernatural powers and psychic faculties and self-mastery by reason of which he will be able to follow the noble paths that lead to the assemblages of the Buddhas, moving about as freely as he may wish. But his wishes will no longer be self-centered nor tainted by discrimination and attachment, for this transcendental personality is not his old body, but is the transcendental embodiment of his original vows of self-yielding in order to bring all beings to maturity. The third kind of transcendental personality is so ineffable that it is able to attain intuitions of the Dharmakaya, that is, it attains intuitions of the boundless and inscrutable cognition of Universal Mind. As Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas attain the highest of the stages and become conversant with all the treasures to be realised in Noble Wisdom, they will attain this inconceivable transformation-body which is the true nature of all the Tathagatas past, present and future, and will participate in the blissful peace which pervades the Dharma of all the Buddhas.

From the Lankavatara sutra... But, Mahamati, as earnest disciples go on trying to advance on the path that leads to full realisation. There is one danger against which they must be on their guard. Disciples may not appreciate that the mind-system, because of its accumulated habit-energy, goes on fuctioning, more or less unconsciously, as long as they live. In context, it is stating that the physical body continues on sort of like as karmic "inertia" until it's normal life end. The Dharmakaya is the aspect of a Buddha that "realizes" emptiness/sunyata.

All truth is relative. Such sharing is always dependent on one's relative clarity and the perception that goes with it. On 3bob, I was referencing and agreeing with his comments earlier in this thread.

What you are describing is quieting the (local) mind, not the realization of emptiness. In particular, Buddha's warning of such a perspective is found in the Lankavatara sutra... The exalted state of self-realisation as it relates to an earnest disciple is a state of mental concentration in which he seeks to indentify himself with Noble Wisdom. In that effort he must seek to annihilate all vagrant thoughts and notions belonging to the externality of things, and all ideas of individuality and generality, of suffering and impermanence, and cultivate the noblest ideas of egolessness and emptiness and imagelessness; thus will he attain a realisation of truth that is free from passion and is ever serene. When this active effort at mental concentration is succesful it is followed by a more passive, receptive state of Samadhi in which the earnest disciple will enter into the blissful abode of Noble Wisdom and experience its consumations in the transformations of Samapatti. This is an earnest disciple's first experience of the exalted state of realisation, but as yet there is no discarding of habit-energy nor escaping from the transformation of death. Having attained this exalted and blissful state of realisation as far as it can be attained by disciples, the Bodhisattva must not give himself up to the enjoyment of its bliss, for that would mean cessation, but should think compassionately of other beings and keep ever fresh his original vows; he should never let himself rest nor exert himself in the bliss of the Samadhis. But, Mahamati, as earnest disciples go on trying to advance on the path that leads to full realisation. In buddhism, the concept of the vow becomes critical to move beyond the perspective that you describe. As 3bob has stated many times, they are just two different views and as such lead to two different places.

In deeper aspects of consciousness (beyond "local" mind), it does appear that the two are the same, but such is not the realization of sunyata (emptiness). The difference between the two positions can be found in the words of the Heart sutra. The two positions only appear to be the same in the void = form aspect of the emptiness, not with the "full" realization (or full meaning of the sutra).

From the Dhammapada on anger (and irritation)... 17. Anger Let go of anger. Let go of pride. When you are bound by nothing You go beyond sorrow. Anger is like a chariot careering wildly. He who curbs his anger is the true charioteer. Others merely hold the reins. With gentleness overcome anger. With generosity overcome meanness. With truth overcome deceit. Speak the truth. Give whenever you can, Never be angry. These three steps will lead you Into the presence of the gods. The wise harm no one. They are masters of their bodies And they go to the boundless country. They go beyond sorrow. Those who seek perfection Keep watch day and night Till all desires vanish. ... Anger and irritation drops. All irritation is an automated subconscious ego response. It is simply a reaction to a past memory or projection of the past into the future. There is no anger or irritation while focused in the present moment.

The two are directly connected. As mental clarity "increases" one is less whipsawed by emotions. The concern with only focusing on mental clarity is that one can sort of dig a deep hole in consciousness and stay in that quiet mental place. This is often like staying on a mountain top. It is only when one is dealing with normal issues of work, family and life that one knows if they have true mental clarity. Working with energy across the entire energy body helps with this as one "hits" obstructions (issues and fears) stored in the energy body. The hitting/noticing allows one to notice such a broader spectrum of issues. On the energy side, a similar concern is with people who only with certain chakras (or higher energy ranges). Such limited energy interaction is the same things as "spiritual bypassing" at an emotional level.

John 7:38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

If one has fear of going astray, then one is already on a side path.

While I agree that I have posted a few times on various levels of spiritual development, I don't think I have ever had 10 levels in my descriptions. Depending on the topic and framework, the descriptions and thus the number of levels change.

Like which came first, the chicken or the egg... But, I prefer that the One sort of emerged from the Tao. Somebody had to be first.