stefos

I'm sorry idiot Stimpy....but what the heck is this junk?: Quote: "Several years ago I had a class in which there was a sudden electrical blackout. All of the people in the class started to shout and laugh. Why? Their hidden minds emerged." No, it's not their "hidden minds"....it's people carrying facades ESPECIALLY the biggest facade called "Self delusion" where people are either not serious or just surface or just wanted a laugh because they are bored. Look sir....Can I suggest that you go back to the Pali Nikayas and stay there for some time? Find an ancient lineage and see what they say and then move back to Chan/Zen. I've heard about so many purported "Ch'an/Zen" teachers and the awkwardness in how & what they teach that I want to vomit.....seriously I do not know who these people are and what affiliations they have insofar as a Buddhist lineage is concerned, at all. My advice is to stay away from them. Peace, Stefos BTW, you might want to read about my Buddhist history posts....not that I'm an expert, I've only researched these matters.

Go home sir. I'm undermining your false Buddhist views......I've provided enough intellectual food for you for 20 lifetimes. You do not understand the things I've been through and Reading words doesn't define a person..... Stefos P.S. I believe you are a quasi-Buddhist at best, huckster and liar at worst.

No, Buddhism didn't originate w/Gautama but when dogmatic claims are made...HARD evidence is needed. If anything the sects found in Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc. probably reflect what Gautama taught very closely BUT...miss it. Dzogchen I believe is what Gautama taught...I don't know what the Pali redactors of the Nikayas did...honestly......I wish a gigantic cache was found with really ancient texts.......I'd die and come back to life again! lol Stefos

Understood....overboard....Please forgive me Stefos

Hi SlippySlim, Nice to meet you sir! I'm down for Private Discussion........You know what to do. I'm a Christian, non-denom, who believes in the biblical version of the bible only. I've also received Dzogchen transmission & empowerments to do various "Buddhist" practices. I've also done comparative religious studies for a number of years now, 12 approximately. Yep, just drop me a line man. (I assume your a man...sorry) God bless! Stefos

Hi TI, No sir....Again it was NOT lights that I saw but 1 foot long ruler like BANDS OF COLOR...not balls of color like thigles. According to occulists, particularly Theosophy/Anthroposophy I saw the emotional body or parts of it or something! This was before my Dzogchen transmission!!! It had nothing to do with Dzogchen as before this event I had practiced mindfulness of breathing and visualizing the chakras from muladhara to sahasrara opening via various colored lights entering them....... Regarding my Dzogchen transmission: Nothing prohibits me from mentioning it: I've had transmission a number of times from Guru Norbu: 1ce on Guru Padmasambhava's anniversary 1ce on Adzom Drugpa's anniversary 2x's on Guru Garab Dorje's anniversary Guru Norbu "introduced" me to the primordial state! See, I talked about it without breaking my samaya.......Samaya DOES come with transmission sir! So I cannot talk about it other than to say: YOU must experience it not talk about it. Remember logical conceptualization fails after a point. In Dzogchen, transmission is necessary but as Guru Norbu pointed out, some people already are functioning in the state of presence without transmission. Look sir, I'm blessed! Most people, I think, not trying to be a showoff or proud, don't even have a fraction of the spiritual blessings I've received from God & Guru as well. This is why I kind of go nuts on these forums! I've seen SOME STUFF man. I'm thankful! Really...you don't understand. Stefos P.S. A private message is coming to you...Read it bro!

Ogden.......jeez GOJI BERRIIIIEESSS!!! Ahahahahaha Stefos

Hi TI, My Dzogchen transmission is from the Buddhist side: Guru Namkhai Norbu...my sweet root teacher! BTW sir you misunderstood what I posted! Here's what happened, put succinctly: I played the bowl, placed it on it's stand, walked over to the owner of the store who was opposite me and then I just rested my forearms (bony side) on the counter and just relaxed. I didn't hold my head with my hands.....I then saw what looked like a veil lift from over my 2 eyes and I saw 2 bands of color near her ribcage (pastel green then outside of that pastel purple with black mixed in....not balls of light!!) lol So, There it is. Stefos P.S. The Bardo Thodol mentions combining Mahamudra & Dzogchen.....Since I have Dzogchen transmission I desire to mix it with Mahamudra as well. I actually found a Mahamudra teacher in Boston when I went into a metaphysical bookstore. Mixy Mixy time!!!!!!!!

Hello sir, I believe you....I've seen stuff happen too! God used a donkey in the bible. We're talking about G.O.D. right? Not the milkman! lol......Catch my drift? Take care, Stefos

Hi, Karma Triyana Dharmachakra website huh? LOL....I ordered my Ekajati statue from there...hahaha, nice! It's the 13" inch gilded copper one with flames on their site....cool. I live in New Hampshire btw. Transmission is another issue TI as you probably know. Dzogchen requires it for "regular people" but some arahats, boddhisattas, etc. might already know it and thus don't need transmission! Regarding my clairvoyant opening many moons ago: -Go to the "hermetic/occult" section on the Tao bums forums tab -Go to "Why are you into this stuff?" thread -Read Stefos experience! Yup, it only happened once sir...never again. Rudolf Steiner said that if one has an initial clairvoyant budding like that, it can fade away because it's not mature. One hasn't developed one's spiritual "organs" properly/fully yet. Oh, well! LOL.....EXCELSIORRR! Onwards! Just kidding...proceed with much caution not seeking siddhis. A suggestion: Pick up a copy of "How to know higher worlds" by Rudolf Steiner sir.....Tell me about it afterwards.....Yep! Dr. Steiner detailed, insofar as he could publicly, how to proceed along the occult path with a Christian perspective. This gent was NOT foolin' around! God bless you.............E MA HO....indeed Stefos

Excuse me sir. I didn't mean to come across as being patronizing! I understand that you are adults. Your response to me however isn't good and is very telling. You immediately judged my phrase without even asking about my intent! Does that make sense to you? At that, you don't even know me! If you're a Buddhist/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist, you should know better! Show some humility. Stefos

Hi, Dzogchen mentions that one must have what's called "transmission or be introduced to one's own nature" through a master. Verbally explaining it won't do it. It's akin to saying writing a book about ripe, delicious cherries....Great book! no actual food! Although some people are born with the "inborn understanding" of Dzogchen and the state of Naked Awareness, most of us were not....lol Jiddhu Krishnamurti talked a LOT about Choiceless Awareness which is what Dzogchen calls "Naked Awareness." Krishnamurti said that one could be Choicelessly Aware unknowingly but did need a teacher....he himself taught on & about Choiceless Awareness quite a lot. Choiceless Awareness corresponds to the Semde or "Mind series" teachings in Dzogchen only and not working with the subtle energy system or "voice." Of course, Naked awareness/Bare attention is something EVERYONE can learn but how one "works" with that is another story, as mentioned above. One inevitably needs a teacher or at least the verbatim words of a real teacher of these things....no 2 ways about it. Krishnamurti is the only teacher who taught about such high level things openly, that I'm aware of! Maybe some Theras understand this Choiceless Awareness or maybe not...I don't know. Anyway, Check out Krishnamurti's study book called "Choiceless Awareness" & pick up "Self Liberation through seeing with Naked Awareness" by Snow Lion publications. You won't be disappointed. Regarding teachings through dreams: One must have "culled" the ability to be aware in the dream itself. This is a practice taught in Dzogchen circles. Rudolf Steiner mentions "continuity of consciousness from sleep into the dreaming state." I think that THIS is something different than Dzogchen teachings but obviously similar. Finally, One has to have a relationship IN the spirit realm. "Who would a person communicate to and Why?" are the quintessential questions along with "Why would a person/entity want to talk with me if they didn't have an agenda? be it selfish or selfless???" is the other question. I hope this makes sense sir. Take care & God bless you! Stefos P.S. I view Advaita Vedanta in the same manner as I do Dzogchen...it's all theory without a teacher!

@Tibetan Ice & Konchog uma, Look folks...please don't bring this discussion to the level of arguement. A number of years ago, due to meditation, I had a small, very small, breakthrough into clairvoyant visage. I mentioned it in the occult section of this site. Now, THAT particular level of clairvoyance has never occurred again to me but since I saw what I saw, I cannot turn back to my old ways of thinking about this world. Why do I interject this way? When we say "enlightenment," we need to qualify it. Now, Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, etc. are Siddhis gained by practice on one level or another. They are not "Enlightenment" as such and can pose as threats to enlightenment. However, ANY legitimate path to enlightenment says "Hey, these things happen when one gets more aware, etc." I say the above not that I'm THE guru or something! LOL....I'm no one...really. Before anyone makes any assertion to "Enlightenment" that word must be qualified and there must be proof that a particular said person, i.e. Nagarjuna for example, really exihibited the fruit of enlightenment and not just glibly say "Nagarjuna was the prophesied one." THAT kind of statement is nonsense...X, Y, Z prophesied and THAT is the person! No, we have to understand that EVERY modern Buddhist school has its own philosophical outlook on the Dharma & how it defines "Enlightenment." If anything, I've seen more enlighted Advaita Vedantists like Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc. than so-called "Buddhist" teachers. In Dzogchen, some people attain the Rainbow Body, however this is not enlightenment I don't believe. I've only heard of enlightened Buddhist masters from the Tibetan traditions too...nothing from Chan, Zen, T'ien Tai, etc. by the way. I would venture to say that the Tibetan Tantrics understood energy and what to do with it and that Dzogchen is quite akin to Advaita Vedanta per se. Does this make sense? Define enlightenment first before making dogmatic declarations. Stefos BTW, Have either of you studied the work of Rudolf Steiner? He was an Arahat or Boddhisatta, per se, but he taught about the Christ. Check him out. Pick up or interlibrary loan his book "How to know higher worlds" as he mentions Buddhism. Very interesting man indeed. No bad word or bad event was ever mentioned of him in his life. He spoke about many occult things openly and had subsequent death threats to prove it and Hitler had him marked for death actually but Dr. Steiner died before Hitler could do anything! Take care

Hi, Funny stuff...........It seems every niche in the spiritual must be filled by someone like this! Seriously though, People who sincerely practice are miniscule in comparison to jokesters like this cat! Stefos...........BIG UP!

Hi everyone, I'm new to this sub-forum so please understand that I am VERY ignorant about the Te Tao Ching. I have Stephen Hendricks books which contain the Te Tao Ching in translations from the 2 archaeological finds from southwest and northern China respectively. So, My question is this: I've been keeping an eye out for linguistic similarities in various cultures, in particular the use of the the word "God." In the following languages, God or a divine being is described as follows: Theos (Greek) God.....Theia (Greek) Goddess Deus (Latin) God Deva (Sanskrit) God (divine being similar to an angel) Shang Di/Ti (Chinese) God Te (Aztec) God....Tenochtitlan....Teotl....etc. Could it be that the Te Tao Ching is actually a Theistic work? I have also noticed that "reuniting" with this consciousness/a state of being outside of space/time is THE main thrust of the Te Tao Ching and not creating elixirs giving a long life span...If I'm right of course. Western Alchemy echos the same sentiment as well. Please comment! Thank you! Stefos

Well....Good question! What ARE the sources...not MY sources? Overarching every other statement made on this post and overall: We have to deeply research ancient Buddhist history to discern what exactly happened: At the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th "Buddhist councils" During the "24 schools" period Understand which sect Ashoka supported, promulgated and why Find out what caused the Great schism between the ancestors of the modern Mahayana and Theravada. First: Understanding the Buddha's immediate spiritual climate during his life is paramount: Which spiritual groups were around and what role did they play in the Buddha's geographical area is important What the terms Brahman and more important "Atta/Atman" meant to the Buddha or the popular culture of his day meant is key to unlocking this "No-self" or "Not-self" issue Then we properly have a foundation in which to then examine the following: First, I would examine the Pali nikaya texts, their commentaries, the Pali Vinaya (Theravada) & the Vimuttimagga. Second, I would examine the Abhidhamma of the Theras as well. These, I believe, make for an excellent way of discerning what the Buddha taught. All the above being said, I do not believe that we can today exactly pinpoint ALL of what Buddha Shakyamuni taught. Why? We have no recorded verbatim talks the Buddha gave from his own or immediate post mortem time period. All other subsequent schools or teachings MUST be viewed under the above terms or else we risk the chance of calling every modern sect, syncretistic teaching/cult that mentions the Buddha, Examples of syncretistic quasi Buddhists cults being "Friends of the Western Buddhist order" or "Pure Land Buddhism," as true Buddhist teaching. Stefos

Look, Swami Sivananda did what he did.....Swami Prabhupada did what he did. I just used what was easily available.....whatever. You want to research, you can but you are too intellectually lazy to do so and therefore wanted me to drone endlessly about things. Sorry, It isn't going to happen anymore. Stefos P.S. Stop trolling and live your Buddhism...... You're not a Buddhist....therefore I choose to dismiss you permanently along with your petty comments. Post grown up posts and don't waste peoples time again.

How do you know this? Furthermore, Buddha's teachings if one examines the Pali texts have Upanishadic roots! I mentioned "vedic"...it means one thing to me...O.K. forgive the sloppiness. Alexander Wynne tells me that the Buddha learned from Upanishadic teachers not Jains! Wynne's work is ground breaking and utilizes etymology & philology........The other authors don't do this insofar as I know. Stefos And? Garab Dorje, Sri Simha, Manjushrimitra, Padmasambhava, Vimalamitra and Vairotsana don't! Here we go round the mulberry bush!!! Please readdress what Shakyamuni Buddha actually taught FIRST before asserting what later traditions taught. If you don't do this, How can you prove if it's Buddhadharma? Stefos

I will just say that different scholars vary in this interpretation. Suffice to say that the Buddhas prior teachers point to something. That something is debatable, not something that I'm interested in. Many scholars understand the teaching Brahaman was known during Shakyamuni's life and that the "atman/atta" was misinterpreted during Shakyamuni's lifetime as well! Investigate this matter & repost. Again, the Pali texts are not the most ancient account of what Shakyamuni Buddha said. In all likelihood, the most ancient accounts will never be gotten due to them not being written down. Any "Buddhist" sects today must clearly define what Shakyamuni Buddha taught or else, it's all up for grabs....Speculations from Buddhists and hard dogmatic stances. This is why I'm leery of all Buddhist sects in existence today. Stefos

Hi Wayfarer, This particular Buddhist forum reflects one thing: That dogmatism exists in "Buddhist" circles that is not backed by ancient texts, history & critical thinking but by people who don't want to research a thing about what happened after the Buddha died. There are no earlier complete Buddhist texts than the Pali, written 400 years after the Buddha dies and I hear people say, left & right, not on this sub-forum necessarily: "These Pali texts are Buddha's original teachings." Even in Theravada circles, there is disagreement about what the Buddha taught and there exist different schools that teach differently about the "how to's" of meditation and such.....What a mess! Jumbalaya! The clinch about current Buddhist philosophy: There is no substratum in which the modern Buddhist can logically operate. What Shakyamuni taught, nobody today knows! That's that for that. They can come close though. Buddhist philosophy as expounded by most schools today talk about momentariness of EVERYTHING. Shankara said essentially "If all is flux/momentary, then what is memory?" He continued to say "If all is momentary, then there aren't even any skhandas" which of course the Pali texts state exist. See, the issue is that the Pali Abhidharma/Abhidhamma is a Theravada expounding/interpretation as are the other schools interpretations. Later Buddhists understood this loophole of "momentariness" and created the Alaya-vijnana concept which is nothing but a lift of Brahman.....there is only a slight difference, everything else is the same. Research but Beware of all Buddhist sects. Stefos

Ooops! My mistake.... How about addressing the rest of the post? You side stepped that also. Ancient Buddhism is NOT understood well at all, nor is it being expressed hardly at all. Every modern school has no humility in stating this except for the Tibetans & some Theravadan teachers...I've never heard anyone else make this statement of "That is what Shakyamuni taught not what we teach." No wonder every "Buddhist" says THIS teaching that I have is Buddhadharma.......Suuurrrree it is! Stefos

I would say this: Buddhism, Pali text style & Dzogchen Christianity (If you read the New Testament carefully, it says "your spirit has become one with His spirit, making you children of God" By the way, How does one "separate" spirits? You don't! Advaita Vedanta All the above 3 point to one thing: Non-Duality being the ultimate state Explicit in Non-duality is transcending the "me" or relative reality or "personality." When viewed from this angle, things look different. What concerns me for any & everyone is this rhetorical question "Are you living it or not?" Stefos

No, There is no mention of Brahman because the PALI texts were written down 400yrs after the Buddha died. You seem to have the bias that the Pali texts are the definitive "word of the Buddha" while all other ancient Buddhist sects/schools also had a Nikaya & Vinaya code too besides the Theras. About 150-200 years after Shakyamuni died, you had confusion and sectarianism called the "24 schools period" and after that you have Ashoka giving pre-eminence to one particular "shade" of Buddhism over others. After that you had the Mahasamghika breaking away which eventually gave rise to the Mahayana. THAT is why you don't read about Brahman.....Pali editors bias, at least for the Pali texts anyway. Not only that we have no records of what ANY other ancient pre-Theravada sect held to...........Speculation only speculation. Could you please address my questions & hypothesis? I don't know why they were side stepped. Thank you, Stefos

This is the deal: The Pali texts consistently mentioned Brahma only...No Shiva or Vishnu....Why? The neuter Brahman isn't mentioned at all. Why? Brahman was well known during this time period as was the atman, albeit there WERE different ways that people expressed the understanding of atman. The above questions are answered here: Pali redactors with a particular bias put their own spin on it, is the answer....The Buddha didn't live in a bubble, he knew what was going on around him. The Pali texts place a good deal of the Buddha's teaching from Upanishadic sources and even the cosmology is based on an vedic view (I.E. Mahatattvas, etc. etc.) We must start with the Pali texts and work backwards first historically & then forwards historically and not like some posit: A virtual make-up-"Buddhism"-as you go bunch of non-sense. Buddhists don't have enough gumption to question why they believe what they believe, instead it's "Venerable X, Y, Z says.....", "Bodhidharma says.....", "Nagarjuna says...." , "Naropa says.....", "Garab Dorje says.....".......Look find out if this is true in YOUR experience! Furthermore, the Pali reflects the most ancient complete form of Buddhism that we presently have. It would make logical sense to view it and understand that in Buddhist history MUCH confusion has taken place with every single sect sprouting out claiming to be Buddhadharma! Tell me it isn't so.... Not to AGAIN mention that after the Buddha died, a "24 schools period" happened along with the schism which occured that ultimately gave rise to the Mahayana. I see this train of rigid bias being replicated over & over again in my own experiences with so-called "Buddhists." The issue is either the Buddha didn't teach about Brahman or he did. If he didn't, there is a reason. If he did, there is a reason. I believe that he did in fact teach Brahman but not in the terminology of the day due to the confusion that swirled around the word "Brahman" and the word "atman or atta." Otherwise, this is needless "Buddhist" speculation. Stefos

@Tibetan Ice, In Dzogchen, the nature of the mind is the goal, per se. That nature is beyond duality. Samsara/Nibbana can be viewed as a duality....of course. The point I'm making is: Nibbana is the goal not Buddhahood vs. Nibbana....Simple. Nowhere in the Pali texts or in Dzogchen texts does it say: "Embrace the duality of Samsara/Nibbana" It merely says in Dzogchen texts "One Taste"....You have to be very careful in making a statement like that. Contextualize it in the view of the goal: "To abide in the primodial nature of Samantabhadra" The Pali texts do not explicitly mention the "2 truths" as posited by certain Tibetan schools...that's a fact. The Tibetan schools themselves do not agree with another philosophically either when it comes to the "2 truths" system...consider the Jonangpa's and other Tibetan schools that many never heard of! Ultimately however the Pali & Tibetan teaching of "2 truths" can be reconciled BUT one has to understand the vantage point of each and not say "Shakyamuni taught this! He REALLY did!" Shakyamuni didn't explicitly teach the "2 truths system" of Nagarjuna.....nope. Rather what is stated is, in Dzogchen, "The nature of the mind which is non-dual, luminous & clear." This is what the Buddha Shakyamuni stated also, at least it's put in his mouth, in the Pali texts. Same thing: Nibbana is the goal and forget about Samsara.....go to the "other shore" not "get some of the One Taste" Does this make sense? WHY is no one actually perceiving what I'm saying? I care about Nibbana which the Buddha Shakyamuni used Neti,Neti to qualify & in 2 places used via positiva statements to qualify (See prior posts) Finally, Dzogchen borrows from Mahayana but doesn't say "This is it".......no Dzogchen says, paraphrazingly of course, "Look, we understand various vehicles exist, cool, however they are NOT where it's at Ultimately.....THIS is." Therefore Dzogchen uses the various "yanas" Hina, Maha, & "yoga's" like Anu & Maha, AS INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS to finally say: "This is your real nature....Voila!" Stefos