Jeff

Hi R V, In my questions above, I was "interested in" the ethics question and not trying to imply that neutrality was not important. It obviously is very important in any action (energy or not). But, the concept of neutrality itself is limited to the relative "clarity" of the individual. If you have an issue or fear deep in your subconscious it will effect you whether you believe that you are in a neutral state or not. Best wishes, Jeff

Hi Hydrogen, I apologize if I have somehow implied that Adam is not a good guy. I honestly was focused on the implied ethics of the situation. As an example... What if a "powerful person's" correction inadvertently caused a Kundalini reaction? At the level of the "higher self" it is very positive, but at the level of a normal person it can cause many challenging issues? So, if you could give "shakipat" to someone and unleash Kundalini, would you do it without talking to them and getting permission? Thanks, Jeff

Intention defines the karma of the act. In the Nibbedhika Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 6.63) the Buddha said: "Intention (P. cetana, S. cetanā) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

Hi Adam, Thanks again for your thoughts. I am less concerned with neutrality aspect than the theoretical "free will" and unintended effect aspect to the person being helped. Best, Jeff

Hi Adam, Thank you for your thoughtful response. Would it be fair to say that if it "feels like the right thing to do in the moment", that one should do it? Also, your inverse question is very fair and goes to the very nature of the question of "what is suffering and why does it exist?". Thanks again, Jeff

Hi Skydog, Thank you for your thoughtful answer. So simply stated, if you have a "lot of power" and have the ability, you then also have the right to do it (as their higher self would want it)? Do you see a prayer as the same as directly sending energy to a person? In an example like Clarity's above, how do you know the desire to make a correction was not just a subconscious "irritation reaction" to a loud woman at the next table? A subconscious attempt to "quiet her", as happened in the example. I hope you don't mind these questions, but I have been struggling with them for a while now and appreciate other's insights/perspectives. I have been trying to find the balance between "My will" and "Thy will". Thanks again, Jeff

Hi Skydog & Clarity, Thanks for sharing your experiences. If you don't mind, I am interested in the theoretical ethics of the actions. So you feel, that it is appropriate to send energy/make changes to another person without their consent if you feel that it is helpful to them? Thanks, Jeff

Hi Alwayson, Consider looking deep inside and try to feel the meaning of these words in your "heart"... 82. Mary said, “All things exist in and with one another, and while they exist they depend on one another, but when the time of dissolution comes, all things will return to their own root and essence. What has come from above returns to the abode from which it has come, and what comes from below returns to its origin. What is in between has never existed, and will return to the Great Void.” 38. A woman said to Mary, “I have seen the light!” Mary said to the woman, “Wonderful! Now join the darkness to it, and go into the light, and you will discover what is beyond appearances.” 2. Mary was speaking to her companions, and she said, “There is glory of glory, and glory of light, and there is the True Light. Seek, therefore, the essence of the light, which is beyond all, and you shall know the Truth of Light.” Secret Gospel of Mary

When the blind person succeeds in threading the needle, it is as if their sight had returned to them. This is how it is the moment one recognizes and enters into the primordial state by means of the transmission. (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu) Remind you of anything from the gospels...? Best wishes, Jeff (edit - sorry, I slipped... )

Fair enough. In my experience, the deeper meaning of Jesus's words have been lost over the years and in support for the broadening of Roman empire. I tend to use the Dzogchen as it has become the modern day "generic word" that people use to describe various primordial paths. But, as you have stated, there is really no need to draw any connections/comparisons. Each primordial path, though similar in nature, stands on it's own. In the future, I will just post on my experience with the broader meaning and not try to directly compare to Dzogchen. Everyone is free to draw there own conclusions ( no missionary work - Alwayson ) A few final words... 244. Mary said, “The true elements are hidden by the visible, so also are the true rites of the Gospel hidden by the visible. Look to see what is hidden and you will understand.” Best, Jeff p.s. Personally, my beliefs could be described as a gnostic Christian/Buddhist/Taoist hybrid. The Lankavatara Sutra is probably my favorite ancient text.

One is also free to read Christian texts that are beyond the limited scope defined and approved by the early roman empire. 19. Mary said, “Until there is light in a form and it becomes light, it is a false appearance. Though a human form appears, unless a person brings the supernal soul into the body, that person is not yet a human being.” The Secret Gospel of Mary

Hi Apech, I believe that I stated in an earlier in this thread (post 5) that I was going to discuss the concept of Dzogchen/primordial master at a later time. I am still trying to find "open" and published material that can be shared to support the position. Like in Dzogchen, much of the inner information is "restricted". The purpose of this thread was to only share a broader perspective on the Lord's Prayer as you had specifically used it as a counter argument (in a different thread) regarding the lack of correlation between the Lord's Prayer and Buddhism. Best wishes, Jeff

The words are from the quote from CNN that I posted (26) above. My point is that "cleaving" is an early Christian term with a similar meaning as CNN's "unification".

I am not attempting to convert anyone to anything. Just providing a more gnostic Christian perspective to the words of Jesus.

Does "the unification of the state of the master with that of the disciple." also sound like sex?

Hi Dao, I would definitely agree with your point regarding translating any language. The above versions of "The Lord's Prayer" I posted was someone's translation of the words and meaning. Everyone is free to interpret the original words in their own context. But, just as Dzogchen and Buddhism in general has "inner forms" and secret rites, texts and transmission, why would not Christianity? In most traditions, it written word was only for the "outer form" of the path. Regarding "light" as corresponding/related to "name", both are concepts of in the creation of "form". Here are a few words for The Gospel of Thomas... 50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

From "Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State" by CNN Atiyoga, which is synonymous with Dzogchen, is based on the path of self-liberation, and on the direct experiential knowledge of the primordial state. As I have discussed in other threads, my point is that Jesus was a "primordial" (or Atiyoga) master. More from... "Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State"... The direct transmission comes about through the unification of the state of the master with that of the disciple. Or, from the Secret Gospel of Mary... 33. Mary said, “Know how to cleave, and the husks shall be shed, and you will be joined to the Living One. The perfection of cleaving is the bridal chamber, and the wedding feast is the glory of that Perfect Aeon.”

Some early actual references on for your review... "Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." (Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, c. 120 AD) "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1, c. 180 AD) "Among the four gospels... I have learned by tradition that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language." (Origin (c. 185-254 AD), Commentary on Matthew, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4)

From Wikipedia (but feel free to research other sources on what language Jesus spoke)... "It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities." Translations are always subject to differences in time, culture, language and perspective... Best wishes, Jeff

If you think a PM is more appropriate, that is fine. Regarding the 8th chakra, sorry about the confusion... Yes, the 8th is above the head, but has a direct connection to the inner heart. It may be possible to perceive it like a connecting beam, but it would depend how the "mind" would translate the concept. Best, Jeff

Hi Apech, Broadly speaking, my position is in showing that true "communion" is an advanced form of Dzogchen guru transmission. In both cases, "light" or a "state of knowledge" is shared. The challenge is in finding quotable support for both types of sharing to show the direct correlation. I hope to post something later this week. On the broader similarity between early christianity and buddhism, I offer these words from the Secret Gospel of Mary... 82. Mary said, “All things exist in and with one another, and while they exist they depend on one another, but when the time of dissolution comes, all things will return to their own root and essence. What has come from above returns to the abode from which it has come, and what comes from below returns to its origin. What is in between has never existed, and will return to the Great Void.” See any similarities in the words above to buddhist thought? Regards, Jeff

Hi Skydog, I would agree that there are infinite levels (or maybe better - infinite variations) in the concept of an enlightened being. I also agree that the concept of an independent (or unique view) continues to exist for an enlightened being. But, there is a direct correlation between the level of integration in oneness and the letting go of the "sense of self". As an example, if someone still experiences anger, then they are still subject to "automated responses" and they are not experiencing enlightened moments. Also, in classic understanding, experiencing "bliss" is not the same or related to emptiness. As you described it, "bliss" is something that you "experienced" for 5 minutes. Emptiness (or Form = Void and Void = Form) is beyond "experience". More an fundamental realization/knowing that all states are the same (or don't really exist). Or as described in the Lankavatara Sutra... "By emptiness in the highest sense of the emptiness of Ultimate Reality is meant that in the attainment of inner self-realization of Noble Wisdom there is no trace of habit-energy generated by erroneous conceptions; thus one speaks of the highest emptiness of Ultimate Reality." As described above, when one realizes emptiness, there are "no barriers" between/from anything, because one "knows" that everything is the same and there is really no place to go. That the inside is the same as the outside. Finally, pretty cool that you know an "enlightened person". Any details that you can share? And, from your above comments, I am happy to drop the conversation if you want. Best wishes, Jeff

Hi RV, It depends on the tradition. In my post to Skydog, I just used the references because he mentioned the 8th chakra and I thought it might be helpful for our discussion. Realization of the "8th" is a big step and rarely discussed. Most call it the "inner heart" or some similar term. Best, Jeff

Hi Skydog, I would agree on your point and concept of integration. Also, I would agree that the 8th chakra is really the merging and collapsing of the standard 7 chakras. The 8th is also often called and directly connected to the "inner heart". If there is a perceived difference between meditation and normal daily life the 8th is not really open. My point was more similar to what Steve was describing above. Also, the "void" is not the same thing as the perception of "nothingness". The perception of nothingness (or I am nothing) is usually a precursor to the realization of "oneness". The void is complete cessation (no perception or experience). Emptiness is more the "realization" that oneness and complete cessation are the same thing. The opening of the 8th chakra (or collapse of the 7 chakras into a unified field) is a precursor to the realization of emptiness. Usually the full opening of the 7 chakras is realizing nothingness. The 8th (and other higher chakras) are the expansion into oneness (or realizing the inside is the same as the outside). Most stop at the 7th/nothingness and declare enlightenment, some expand to the 8th/oneness and experience integration with all, but it is very rare to take the deeper step of a Buddha (or Christ). Regards, Jeff

That is not what the Heart Sutra means when it says that... Void = Form and Form = Void. Also, when one experiences the "Void", they "cease", there is no noticing of anything. Regards, Jeff