Jeff

How am I ever going to understand your point, if you never explain why you always disagree (or deny) with everything CNN says? If you are going to disagree with a teacher/guru, it would be helpful if you would at least quote sutra or another recognized guru for your position. Just saying hundreds of quotes are "bad translations" is not useful (or right action). Best wishes on your path, Jeff

Hi Alwayson, Good to hear from you, this thread has been dead for a while. I don't quite understand the purpose of your quote. Are you somehow saying in a roundabout way that CNN is wrong? Making a statement that his approach leads to a "lower" realization? Best wishes, Jeff

Hi Vmarco, From Norbu on the Void... In the Dzogchen teachings the primordial state of the base is not defined only as being void, but is explained as having three aspects or characteristics, called the "three primordial wisdoms": essence, nature, and energy. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State In Buddhism, "Void" is just a piece of the picture. Maybe ask yourself, what/where are the "wisdoms" (or truth as Jesus describes) that Buddhas "hang out in" when they "realize" that Form is Void and Void is Form... Best wishes, Jeff

Very fair. Thank you for the discussion. I would also agree that "Void" is not a level. Your point on immortals is where I had planned on leading the discussion. For an immortal (or Buddha or Christ) who has "realized", it seems that as you have said in your examples and found in the Heart Sutra... Form is Void and Void is Form. Who or "what" can realize that? Best wishes, Jeff

Thanks. From your description above, it sounds like you don't really buy into most of it. Current Buddhist/Dzogchen teachers, like C.N.Norbu are pretty specific on the topic. If you are interested, the Lankavatara Sutra is an excellent overiew. I would definitely agree with you on the Heart sutra... If one moves beyond "mental understanding" and truly "realizes" that Void is Form and Form is Void. Then, that is pretty much all you need... Best, Jeff

Hi Mokona, I understand what you are saying, but my question for Thetaoiseasy is a little different. The "beings" you are talking about are at the astral/mind level. In buddhist terms, it would be "apparent reality" or before the "Void". Buddhas (and I believe Immortals) are defined as beings that have "seen beyond" or "transcended" apparent reality. Best, Jeff

Hi Vmarco, Thanks for your comments above, but I had hoped to discuss Buddhism with you. I am trying to understand the perceived framework relative to the concept of "God". Both you and Thetaoiseasy seem to have "defined" or conceptualized "God". If you could answer my previous question, it would help... Do you believe that "Buddhas" exist as the "beings" described in all Buddhist texts? Thanks, Jeff

Interesting concept on what Jesus is "describing"... In the original Jewish tradition, the "highest aspect of God" was never named and could not be named (beyond Form). Also, Genesis describes the concept of "light" and the "word" which would seem to be equivalent to your definition of "spirit". Your statement above, does seem to state that your concept is that the "highest level" is "impersonal Void" and that energy/spirit arises out of the impersonal Void. Is this correct? Also, do you believe that there are such "beings" as immortals or Buddhas? Thanks again, Jeff (edit - removed "also")

"God arises from the desire for things to be other than they are" Where did you come up with that definition/concept of God? "Emptiness is the realization of things as they are." This one is also pretty vague... And would require someone to be "beyond mind", with perfect "clarity" for someone to "know". Maybe a different question... Do you believe that "Buddhas" exist as the "beings" described in all Buddhist texts? Best wishes, Jeff

Very true on the definitions and semantics point... But, why do have the concept that "God is the highest energy you can conceive of."? Do you think that is "common" perspective or judgement about the definition of "God"? In Genesis 1, it says "And the earth was without form, and void;"... In John, Jesus says "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." In Luke, Jesus says "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." If you were speaking to uneducated herders and fishermen, what words would you use to describe "Tao"? All traditions seem to have "outer" and "inner" forms. To me, it seems the question/difference really seems to only hang on your point of "impersonal". Would you agree? Best, Jeff

What is the difference between God and Tao? Best wishes, Jeff

What is the difference between God and Emptiness? Best, Jeff

Ok. Thanks. Then what happens when more than one person "experiences/see" a "divine being" at the same place/location or time? Also, do you believe that there is such a being as a Buddha, Christ or Immortal? Thanks again, Jeff

Hi Mewtwo, How do you "know" that there is no God? "We" could all just be a "relative truth" in the non-duality of God/Emptiness. Kind of like "subcomponents" of all that is God. How would that violate your theory? Thanks, Jeff

Thanks for the link, but I had been so impressed with the quote that I had already found it. As you said, it is rare to find such "clear" words, I look forward to reading the full sutra. Best, Jeff

Hi CT, Thank you for the post. I was not familiar with the sutra. It sums up the point very well. One "realizes" that the "inner" and the "outer" are really the same. Best wishes, Jeff

That is a very good point... Best, Jeff

How does one describe a location on the path? I have reached the point where I try to feel the flow and go with it. Did you have any specific questions? On Chapter 67, happy to discuss. Which translation/version shall we use? I do like the one from Shaman Flowing Hand. Best, Jeff

Hi takaaki, Sorry to have missed your earlier question... When I read the words of the Dao De Jing, the meaning flows at three different "levels". The three levels are daily living, command or leadership, and the mystical understanding of "existence". On these three levels, the "insights" have been useful in being a husband & father, running a company and better understanding of my "energy" practices. In my experience, most true texts have both "inner" and "outer" meanings. True "wisdom" provides for all based on where the reader is on their own path. Best wishes, Jeff p.s. As we have in other threads, I am happy to discuss the various meanings of the text.

Hi MPG, Truly "living life" is the best practice of all. Working, being married and having children teaches you far more than living on a mountain top. A week with your new born child will teach you more about "love" than a 100 years of reading and meditation. The key is just to always try to "stay in moment". Every second one stays in the moment (while living life) is worth 100 hours of meditation. Best wishes (from a man married 26 years with 3 wonderful children), Jeff

On Enlightenment, I think Abhinavagupta (Kashmir Shaivism ~1000 AD) sums it up well... ( "The Triadic Heart of Siva" pg 136-137) "When the state of indifference has disappeared, a vibration is perceived in the Heart... (The three types of Emission). The first, the "atomic" (anava), known by the technical name of repose in consciousness (citta-visranti), occurs when all possible products are emitted into the fire of emptiness. The next, know as the awakening of the consciousness, is related to the poser in that its nature that it maintains all visible things, etc... become submerged in consciousness of the self. ... The highest Emission. This is the Sambhava, known technically as the dissolution of the mind." The first emission is same as quiet or clear mind. No more "random" thoughts. The second emissions would be the "integration" into all of reality, or the "level" where one gets the "powers" that TI describes. The third would be equivalent to the Dzogchen/Buddhist "primordial light/awareness". Best wishes, Jeff

Nice description. In other traditions the "One" could be described as consciousness, while the "Tau" would be be primordial awareness/light. Best, Jeff (edit - deleted needless sentence)

Nothing in life is a better teacher than being a parent. The key is to "learn" the wonderful & loving lessons. Regards, Jeff

Regarding the "new age concept" of "feeling with the heart", it is more a fruit of practices than something one practices. But, in essence, I can show anyone who has mastered Tummo how to do it. Best wishes, Jeff

Once again you are taking it out of context. Here are some words of CNN in "Dzogchen: The Self Perfected State" (pg 56) on the topic... "The Sambhogakay is the self-perfected dimension of the manifestation of energy. It corresponds to the natural clarity of the base, liked to presence." ... "the essence, nature and energy are called the "three bodies of the base." They correspond to the three aspects or characteristics of the nature of the mind: the calm state (gnas pa), movement ('guy ba) and presense (rig pa)." Calm (or quiet) mind is the aspect of the "base" that is necessary for useful tummo. Also, for anyone interested, the "Six Yogas of Naropa" are recommended. Best, Jeff