Jeff

Actually, to me we seem more to be talking Oranges and Apples (or Ice cream for me). And you seem to be totally missing my point on children and ice cream. I am definitely not calling you a child. I have been saying that one should approach it all with a child like curiosity. Exploring and playful. Mental maps with an assumption that you then verify or not, are not effective. They are a mental trap. One does not use "mind" to escape "mind". With my many extra words, I have been attempting to differentiate our opinions, just as I did with Fa Xin on his question. I don't understand your frustration with me, but I can definitely feel it. Is your frustration with my words based upon the fact that I seem confident of my position? Or the fact that I disagree with some aspects of various traditions?

This framework is different that what I am describing and also different than the Dzogchen concept of emptiness. This is much more like the AV model with Brahman as the "base" and Atman (as the individual framework) as the limiter. This view would be like my old discussions with Dwai where the One = Tao. The part of the Heart sutra that is often misunderstood is people think it is only "Form = Emptiness" and that is the same as Neti-Neti or everything drops to Void. But, it is also, Emptiness = Form, or everything exists (or appears out of) emptiness. The true magic of buddha's emptiness is that it is both of these at the same time, and that is the part that is "beyond" mind. My personal view would say that Buddha should have described an additional aspect and that is what I call the "primordial" to differentiate it a little. Like I have said before, my view would be more the integration or blend of KS and Dzogchen.

Maybe think of it like this... You read about tasting ice cream, and have the desire to taste it. Some else has read your same description and tasted ice milk, so they are sure that they know that what they tasted is the same thing. They then mentally define ice milk as ice cream for everyone... Then, someone comes along and says "something is found to be off", and the group in their mental understanding tells that person that it is obviously "an indication of their misunderstanding". Ice cream is much richer and creamier than ice milk, and that difference must be experienced and not read or discussed, but the mind naturally likes to attach to its definitions/constructs. Dive deep, be curious and playful like a little child... This is why tantra is such a useful approach as you focus on the ice cream itself, and not the definition of it...

No, as I have repeatedly stated with the black board analogy and also my quote from Jesus to CT, there is no such separation. Beyond the mind means that emptiness cannot be realized by the mind. The mind is simply an appearance "like chalk" that arises in emptiness (really primordial, as emptiness is a more limited view in my view) "like blackboard" Haha... You are using a straw man fallacy to state that I may be using a straw man fallacy. Please clarify both your assertion you believe I am making and my proposed fallacy, so that I can have any possible hope at all of responding with my refutation. Then I will be happy to respond.

In a way yes, as it is all about "letting go of" the underlying issues. But, whether one works with a higher being or the universe itself, those beings are not really "taking", it is more that they create a natural tantric polarity with deeper and stronger energy flows then one can create on their own. Those stronger flows dig deeper and give one greater potential (or easier) to release them. True "spontaneous perfection" (that Steve was describing) happens at what I call light level and is beyond "local" mind, so there is not the local you asking did I let it go. At light, it is more that one is "being" all and residing. So when the energy flow with a divine being "hits" (or brings up) a subconscious issue or fear, rather than react in local mind, it more dissolves into its more pure clear light form, leaving no real attachment structure to come up or ask about. This is more easily seen if you think about forgiving someone. If you truly forgive, it never comes up and is effectively gone. But, if you feel the need to remind yourself or the other person that you forgave them, then you never really completely forgave them in the first place.

While I would agree that anything put down in words require a mental understanding, I would argue that it is impossible to truly understand the meaning of the Heart sutra without the realization of emptiness itself. Emptiness is "beyond the mind", and can not be built up from a basis of mental understanding. Words are nothing but pointers, and a great danger when they become a descriptive basis for the conceptual mind to lock into a framework. To me, the very idea that the scripture can lead to a "true" mental understanding is the insidious part. Also, with your example on spontaneous liberation, it is not the question itself that is problem, as that is very far downstream from any potential release. If something actually spontaneously releases, it simply drops and does not even arise, so there is nothing that could form the basis for your question of it's release in the first place. Your questioning (in my view), is actually a very positive thing in that you are subconsciously telling yourself that you have not really released it and bringing that awareness into your conscious mind. It actually shows a deep perceptional capability that you realize there are still subconscious aspects hanging around of the underlying issues.

He is not abolishing the old, but instead bringing a "higher" or more accurate (better) understanding/realization. Very similar to buddhism and its higher yanas that came later. It is described well in Hebrews... Hebrews 8:6-13. “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away”. There are many such living traditions. One much simply seek and they will find... On the Gospel of Thomas itself, for those interested we have had a good discussion going verse by verse here at the bums.

Great quote. Amazingly, this same concept just came up in another thread. Here is Jesus’s version of it... 83. Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."

Form is empty. Or you could say that the mind reflects and manifests energy in the mind as visuals, but energy is really just obscured light, and light is clear. Or a “son of god” knows there is nothing to see at astral/energy levels.

I would disagree with some of the comments in the posts above. For me, the gospels (in the Bible) are an accurate set of teachings of Jesus. The challenge is found in that in the formation of bible as a text itself, certain texts were excluded based upon Roman Empire integration and not spiritual guidance. Additionally, equal weight is placed on the Old Testament and it is often viewed as a “linear” story, rather than the “old” and “new” (that is replacing the old). The “god” that is described in the Old Testament is very different than the “god” that Jesus describes in the gospels. Simply throw away the Old Testament and add something like the gospel of Thomas and you have a simpler and better text to work with regarding the teachings of Jesus. Best, Jeff

The Norbu book that I often recommend is Dzogchen: The Self Perfected State. Not sure if that helps. Edited... Haha... See someone beat me to mentioning it...

Ok vey... back to you You are remembering and quoting some Norbu analogy, but I am not. My views are not the same as Norbu (though I respect much of his teachings). I have been using the blackboard analogy for many years in discussions at the taobums. Here is an example of it and how i use it from my old thread from 2015... Norbu and (more broadly) Dzogchen has a different view than mine, and with the difference the underlying nature (and relative potential) of tantra are different. My views are much closer to those found in the Tao Te Ching.

The blackboard is an analogy and not meant as a particular type of consciousness. But, you point out the challenge with using words/books to try to discuss these topics. Your meaning easily becomes different than my meaning. That is why I always advocate directly sharing, so that one “knows” what in mean.

Yes, depending on the pastor or priests, you can get some meaningful differentiation of views. I am not Catholic myself, but very much like Bishop Barron's views. Would love to debate him on a few topics over dinner sometime.

I would agree. I would also add that the modern christian church seems to want to fully see the old and new testaments as equal, rather than see Jesus's teachings as the upgraded realization.

For those who are authentically interested, and prefer an more institutional view and framework... Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Church is very good. He has a weekly podcast/sermon which is broadcast on the national catholic radio network. He is very thoughtful and intelligent, and often draws parallels/comparisons from other hindu or buddhist traditions. https://wordonfireshow.com

For those who are interested in the early Christian writings and their timeline, you may find this site helpful... http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

It "appears" (or has form), but is easily erases (like with any blackboard).

Well said. The girl is like the chalk upon the "emptiness" blackboard...

The naked girl is a reflection/translation in "local" mind. It is a mental conceptualization of the underlying energy/light dynamics. Depending on the issues and fears that affect that local mind space, that dancing can also easily be conceptualized as sex instead.

Well said, but the naked dancing girl is more like a doorway to emptiness than emptiness itself. An establishment of polarity that helps to dissolve the issue and fears that “obscure” the broader realization.

I would also add that he is talking about himself in this verse. In the first sentence they are saying that Jesus speaks the words of the past prophets (spoke in you). But, Jesus brings a new covenant (realization/understanding), and is saying pay attention now (and to him), and dont focus on old (and now dead) words/teachings.

Yes, a child like wonder of it is rare, but a beautiful gift to themselves and the world. Open and flowing...

But in the early stages, the transformation can feel very pleasurable...

Is this about a yoke or more about the pleasure that comes with breaking free and having more room to move (in the moment)?