stefos

Answers to each respective paragraph: 1. No, I do not agree. Why? Other beings besides humans & animals exist. Explain those in your worldview (which incidentally you have not stated) BTW, I have seen a ghost/spirit float across a hallway. It was translucent had a winglike projection jutting out of its "back" and it had no arms just an upper part with the head & winglike projection & the lower part which "fanned" out at the bottom resembling a dress. 2. No, I do not agree. Why? Many things can be read but perception is key, not book knowledge as such. Although a book might "point" to some truth(s) such as siddhis for example 3. Here you state "in Buddhism"........Which Buddhist form are you talking about? Theravada, Madhyamika, Zen, Dzogchen?? Stefos

A "transcendent state" is, in terms of physics and in terms of our actual existence, what is actually occurring. Beyond the imaginations of mind and the extremes of the emotions. Those "parts" are body & brain & mind & that which perceives things such as the aura which I have perceived and other phenomena such as spheres of light, which I have perceived also. More to come....

No....I didn't disavow Vajrayana at all! Vajrayana is the method of energy. It's useful. What I'm saying is this "Which is the original Dhamma? Pre-Pali or today's sects?" See, THE point is this: There are Theosophical writers who are clairvoyants and they are Theists (albeit impersonal). They mention the chakras, nadis, and various koshas as well. Rudolf Steiner mentions chakras, nadis, etc. along with "western" correspondences to "eastern" modes. Vajrayana's roots are in the Upanishads ultimately. The Buddha was a Yogi....any sane person must acknowledge this. The most salient point about the relationship of the Buddha & Upanishads was that the Buddha didn't disavow Brahman in the Pali texts. He did say that Brahma was a "god." The point of this thread was "Being skeptical & critically thinking also." People who want security will often most of time cling to anything out of fear........This I know from experience. Take Care Stefos

Thank you sir. I don't desire to argue either....never have! Be blessed........

Regarding your questions of "awakening": Krishnamurti when asked about transformation he said "A mind that listens with complete attention will never look for a result because it is constantly unfolding like a river, it is always in movement." Also he continued "Such a mind is totally unconscious of its own activity in the sense that there is no perpetuation of a self, of a "me" that is seeking an end." So those quotes, my friend, can be found in the book "Can Humanity change? Krishnamurti in dialogue with Buddhists" Pick it up there's much more. Krishnamurti also stated that we waste energy by chatter, smoking, drinking, being in a daydream mode, meat eating, etc. This energy is what is used when we inquire into "What is" and should not be used towards "What should be" although Krishnamurti acknowledged the "What should be" insofar as morals & ethics were concerned and things like taking care of this planet, etc. There are the various schools, the Krishnamurti archives in the U.S./U.K./India and of course people who gather together that study & discuss the teachings. No lineage is needed really.......Why say "I belong to the Gelugpas or the Sakyas?" Is that THE point? Teachings are needed not "schools" & "lineages"........I do understand that you probably mean where the integrity of the teachings are kept but that my friend is people not books even though books are useful. Stefos

Say whaaat? Play with magick? Who can give an accurate description of this magick? Who can give an accurate description & understanding of nature spirits IN CONTEXT of the greater world & the Why of it? Sir, forgive my ignorance but, WHO in the world today knows anything about real magick? The Order of the Golden Dawn purported to claim such knowledge but they were defunct. Now, The order has been revived per se under a certain gentleman. Who to believe? Comments? Thanks

Thank you for sharing! The Buddha DID mention "boundless energy" and the bodily phenomena as well. It makes no sense to say or have a "Body/Energy" duality..........There is no such thing sir! Comments?

Gaudapada might have been influenced....you've been influenced by Christianity!!!! Sankara was not from what little I've studied. Sankara blasted the Buddhist schools of his day to pieces. The main problem of the Buddhist schools: Momentariness.....How does one explain the accumulation of the Skandhas or Karma by this idea? Sankara said........It's nonsense.........If you posit a "Store consciousness", you can also posit a "self." This is why the non-dual approach is stressed in Mahamudra & Dzogchen. Sankara didn't mention these schools. My perspective is that momentariness exists BUT it is upheld by the substratum of permanence! Hard to understand....Harder to perceive: A holistic field in which momentary phenomena occur. Regarding "Buddhist" schools in general: The problem is NO ONE can nail down what the Buddha actually taught en toto. Period. The "Buddhist" schools which exist today are new inventions...Ex. Pure Land Buddhism I believe that the Buddha did teach certain things but the lines between what he taught & what happened after his death are blurred so much that it IS impossible to ascertain. Transcendental matters are eternal....different "schools" be they Vedanta, Buddhist, Tantric, Esoteric might or might not carry forward primeval truths........to be discussed. Finis

Hi T.S.... Society has a "mixed grab bag" understanding of the latin word "occultus" meaning "hidden." So, technically ANYTHING "hidden" is occult, to begin with. Secondly, IF by occult you mean New Age.....most of society sees this as flukey & flakey. Lastly, IF by occult you mean "an esoteric body of knowledge/understanding/perceptions" then very little of society even knows about let alone cares about THIS definition of the word "occult." I for one would be very careful when moving into THIS body of understanding/perception. Without a teacher, one gets involved with stuff which can be perceived but not understood. To me understanding matters in what I perceive. For me, I've perceived various things which I can talk about but which must be perceived to be understood ultimately. Sorry for being academic! ahahahaha.... But what I've said is true. Take care Stefos

Hi Anderson, This is my perspective: First, Transcendent realities exist Second, The Buddha (Shakyamuni) is part of that Third, Shakyamuni wasn't the only Enlightened person Fourth, I believe that Buddha DID in fact understand Chakras, Nadis, Prana, Bindu, etc. fully When it comes to Vajrayana, I see a gap between it and the Pali "layout" so to speak. Now, in another Buddhist thread someone posted about a French gentleman's work insofar as "Tantric Theravada" or something to this effect was concerned. The Pali suttas talk about Chakras & Prana. To take that line of thought directly, one comes to Nadis & Bindu & Granthis as well. It's no wonder then when meditating as a Yogi, Shakyamuni Buddha understood this stuff. This "stuff" however has the Vedas & Upanishads as its source and not somewhere else as far as I know! So, How do you see the organic blending of the two "ways" of meditating per se? Do you believe that the Pali texts do not preserve the original sayings of the Buddha, insofar as "esoteric" stuff being kept out of them is concerned? Please share your perspective sir Stefos

Well, consider what Krishnamurti said when he stopped the Order of the Star of the East & gave all proceeds, lands, $$, etc. back to the original owners......He didn't care if only 5 people were willing to put into practice "the teachings." Period. Krishnamurti never called what he taught "my" teachings but "the teaching." Krishnamurti brought people up into what he was saying per se. He said "if people live the teaching" not "Gee, I want to create a lineage with TONS of people!" Finally, Krishnamurti walked his talk, right? Of course he did. The teachings encompassed a LOT of ground. The problem is people, like you & I, don't want to live the teachings.....we want to debate them, discuss them, intellectualize them, conceptualize them, etc. No.....Do what the man said, Forget what you've been taught about lineages because Krishnamurti did. Have you read Mary Lutyen's 3 part work on his life? That's some far out stuff he went through. Krishnamurti always said "Truth is impersonal"........Lineages too often stress the person & not the teaching(s).

Why would I want to worship a (minor) deity & not the Ultimate itself? In Vedanta, Brahman is the Ultimate not Ganesh, Shiva & Saraswati. Adi Shankaracharya never mentioned to "worship Ganesh/Shiva/Saraswati" he only talked about Brahman-Nirguna/Saguna. In Pali text Buddhism, Conditioned consciousness ceases to be when one attains Nibbana which is the "unborn, undying, unbecoming." The human language & thought fail past a certain point to be able to explain & express certain realities. Ex. The behavior of quarks......Please tell me how that works in the ultimate sense. Essentially, a unified field of existence (to be qualified) is what we're looking at when it comes to Ultimate reality Later

You SHOULD care about Krishnamurti. He mentioned emptiness, Choiceless Awareness, morals & ethics, being without a self, what "reincarnation" REALLY is, what Kundalini really is, etc. etc. I think & am convinced 100% that that man knew a LOT of stuff he didn't speak of and had amazing clarity. This man lived during our lives. Why not examine what he said? Are you afraid? I have many of his books & he makes complete sense. To dismiss someone by saying "He's a New Ager" makes no sense. This man was known to many people. You obviously have never read any teachings & thus make an ignorant statement. Regarding the Buddhist circles post Buddha's death: The Sthaviravada & Mahasamghika still lived together in each others monastery's man! Wake up! They didn't make 2 separate schools. The 24 schools period thoroughly confused what "Buddhadharma" really was. Regarding Mahayana & Vajrayana & Dzogchen: Mahayana aka Nagarjuna (who made up the Samsara/Nirvana notion) is wrong and is a late invention. Shakyamuni Buddha never stated this "At least" in the Pali texts nor is this Samsara/Nirvana 2 sides of the same coin part of Shakyamuni's teachings. Insofar as Vajrayana is concerned, each school (Sakya/Gelug/Kagyu/Nyingma) dismisses the others as being off! Sakya Pandita, Je Tsongkhapa, etc. etc. Dzogchen dismisses all of them except Atiyoga (in the Nyingma school) as being partial in base, path, and fruit. Ohhhh Kayyy....We really understand what Buddhadharma is now. How obfuscated the modern Buddhist "scene" is! Finally Regarding this statement: "I know that. That's what I've been repeatedly been saying." Proves that Vajrayana is not Buddhadharma but a later invention. One cannot reconcile the Jhanas, Kasinas, etc. with concentration on various seed syllables at particular chakrams, Tummo, moving prana through the body via yogic practices, etc. Consider the above point deeply...... Jhanas, Kasinas, Noble 8 fold path vs. 3 main subtle energy channels, chakrams, Tummo, etc. Do you see the vast gap? Nagarjuna taught something which is not part of Shakyamuni's train of thought (in the Pali texts at least) nor was it ever part of any ancient (Pre-Mahayana) school. Let's think about this.

That wasn't a mistake, now in hindsight. That was me believing you without researching the matter that much deeper. The Mahayana came into being around 50 B.C.......What 400 yrs after the Buddha's Parinirvana??? The Indian Mahasiddhas are teaching another doctirne. Period. The point of this entire post is "What did the Buddha actually teach?" & "How did these lineages come about?" Unfortunately, you refuse to admit what actual original Buddhadharma is IN REALITY. This "conversation" is done.

1. The Theras or "Elders" weren't the break off group...the Mahasamghika were. 2. The Theravada Abhidharma is older than the Chinese & Tibetan ones. 3. Yep, the now labeled "Vajrayana" came later but one would be hard pressed to find Vajrayana being part of what the Buddha actually taught. Although the term Chakkhu or "Chakra" is found in the Pali Nikayas and "winds" are found also (Obviously winds being in English..i.e. pranic winds per se). Modern Vajrayana is not what the Buddha originally taught. 4. Again you Indo-Tibetanized bias is coming out. Vikramshila didn't exist until "late 8th/early 9th century" which is 1200 years after Shakyamuni's death......Hmmmm...why do not go back further in time? I don't deny the subtle energy system at all. It's Vajrayana & Mahamudra/Dzogchen that I look at & say "Where did this come from really?" The answer is "Vajrayana, Mahamudra & Dzogchen are teachings that have syncretistic roots." Stefos

No, Hinayana, as used by polemic texts, pertains to a particular school which is now defunct. Also, some scholars have stated the the pejorative term "Hinayana" was created due to a misunderstanding of a particular stance or position that a non Mahayana school had as well. In any case, you have a "Tibetanized" bent any way it's sliced. I suggest you question your views. There are Tamil Siddhas also who have a "claim to fame" as well as other non Buddhist siddhas. The arguments don't end with the mostly Tibetan Mahasiddhas you hold to. P.S. You have not addressed the question about Krishnamurti........Don't skirt around it, answer it.

I didn't imply that Chandrakirti was a Tibetan, only that Tibetans use him to establish their doctrinal tenets. There you have it.

That was not the question! Krishnamurti never taught "Hinayana." He taught Choiceless Awarness which exactly corresponds to the "Self Liberation through Naked Awareness" of Dzogchen. Krishnamurti's teachings, per se "his", approached each person where they were at and then brought them up to what Krishnamurti taught. Furthermore, Theravada & it's Pali canon are not Hinayana, perhaps a branch maybe. Hinayana, by & large, is a polemic appellation given to a school which is no longer in existence and with whom the Tibetans argued polemically (I.E. Chandrakirti) Theravada is not the sole vehicle of Hinayana....wrong answer. I've heard this stated before ONLY by Tibetan teachers exclusively. Different beasts altogether. Go to Wikipedia & type Hinayana & read the article...... Bad source but it quotes its sources. Walpola Rahula mentions what I state above several times as do other Buddhist scholars. There you go.

You know what? You need to back off the patronizing....." MY favorite source for Buddhism" I never said that. I DID say that the Pali is the most complete ancient compilation of the Buddha's supposed teaching. Of course there was that find that archaeologists made which is older than the Pali: On bark or something to this effect. No, the Pali doesn't reflect the sum total of what the Buddha taught....no way. Again, Take J.Krishnamurti's life: He taught for roughly the same amount of time as the Buddha did and VOLUMES were written, not 4 NIkayas worth with the questionable 5th. Please, look at the question I posted and answer. No more pedantics. Stefos

Oh I recall all of it alright. Answer my question now about Krishnamurti & the Buddha's supposed speech. I'm done talking to you until I get an answer. Stefos

Wrong dude to ask brotherman........Ask the Saivas themselves! Perhaps the tantras along with yogic postures date into pre-Buddhist times & have a link to the Vedas/Upanishads? I don't know what that "link" would be by the way. I don't know! Stefos

Simple Jack, Thanks for posting! I appreciate it. DISCLAIMER: Now, the issue, as a skeptic. (BTW, remember what I posted about Krishnamurti not being a Buddhist.....O.K.?? NO misunderstandings) Many people claim to have THE unadulterated "word of Lord Buddha." The Pali, The Chinese, The Tibetan.... The issue is that no one has mentioned the 24 schools period. No one has mentioned "Gee, why did 24 plus schools arise to begin with?...ALL before the Mahayana "movement"?" O.K........Quoting Vairochana, Amitabha, etc. is meaningless unless the above question is answered in full. Furthermore, I don't believe the Buddhas words were recorded in full. Nope! Why? Let's use Krishnamurti's life & Rudolf Steiner's lives as analogy: K started teaching in what 1930's & died in 1986........50 + years of teachings. Volumes are left of his interactions, verbally, with others. Rudolf Steiner is another person who taught for a number of years but volumes are full of his teachings also. Yet the Buddha's supposed teachings fill 4 Nikayas? With a questionable 5th Nikaya composed of pieces of prose and poetry? Do you expect me to believe this? Really? Do you believe this? I'm not taking the Tibetan into account because of its late compilation. The Chinese has old translations like the Pali and it's Vimuttimagga was used by Buddhaghosa to make the Visuddhimagga...interestingly enough it's almost a direct lift. Please, kindly respond in realistic terms. Thank you, Stefos

True. The point being that race & culture are different. For example, I'm Greek. Am I a Caucasian? People would say "yes." What about the Arab? Caucasian? The Egyptian? Hamitic? Even Africans differentiate between cultures the worst culmination being wars on minority groups within a country. The only reason why culture is so important is that the sacrifice that people made as a stance against having loss of national identity due to slavery or war. Ex. Henry Kissinger stating that "To subdue the Greeks, we must have them lose their identity" (Paraphrased but the "To subdue the Greeks" is a direct quote) So my point is: If some jerk like this would make a statement like he did, He & others have an obvious agenda. Right? I bet you never heard that one before from ol' Kissy Kissinger? Stefos

Dzogchen is our nature, not a book called a "Tantra" nor a Tantric system. CNN stated this over & over again. Knock it off. My reason for getting involved in Dzogchen was by reading the teachings which came through J. Krishnamurti. Choiceless Awareness (same as Self Liberation) Emptiness (same as "Buddhist" emptiness) No self = the self being a construct of thought (similar to Buddhist concept of self but not quite) Krishnamurti never denied God. He said in "The first & last freedom" "It would be foolish to deny God." His definition of God was very different however. Goodbye

Hi everyone, I was reading a portion of the so called "Tibetan book of the dead" really about the dying & the bardo. Anyway, It said there that if one combines Mahamudra & Dzogchen then the reading of the said book wasn't needed. Now, when I spoke to a lama about this he said that Dzogchen & Mahamudra were the same state. Not having practiced Mahamudra stages, Why would the TBOTD even say to mix/combines Mahamudra & Dzogchen? Odd statement to make. Any insights? Ciao......