The Travels of Vajrahriidaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Newly discovered footage:

 

 

BjF4_hR3FfQ

 

 

 

And he didn't even get to his blah-de-blah about Buddhism, non-duality, lack of malodor on His Sacred Feces!

 

 

Edited August 10, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[ralis]

Newly discovered footage:

BjF4_hR3FfQ

And he didn't even get to his blah-de-blah about Buddhism, non-duality, lack of malodor on His Sacred Feces!

 

 

Excellent! LOL!!!

 

ralis

[Aetherous]

Off topic?

[Vajrahridaya]

That is funny! I got a good laugh, thanks!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Off topic?

 

Yes, Scotty--thanks for pointing that out. He is frequently off-topic. And he rambles endlessly, is logically inconsistent, is smug and self satisfied, shut-down and defensive as can be, and can't seem to tear himself away from his computer so that he can post intellectual pseudo-philosophy all day and night long. He's the TaoBum's Sarah Palin, totally oblivious, and he thinks that because he has a few fans, it must mean he' s right! But we try and humor him, because, well...he's nothing else to do and nowhere else to go. I just try and stay away from sharp instruments when reading his posts.

 

Oh, and I'm sure he will probably be the charismatic leader of his own spiritual movement very soon.

[Vajrahridaya]

LOL! So effected...

 

Don't hurt yourself.

 

 

 

 

How old are you? As we get older, we realize that we create our own suffering out of subjective interpretation. That it's really our own state of mind that's at fault for how we experience something, someone or a situation.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

LOL! So effected...

 

Don't hurt yourself.

 

 

 

 

he he. Only when the posts are long and bloviating. I have to keep things like ropes, poisons, etc. kept under lock and key too. Jamaica me crazy.

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

he he. Only when the posts are long and bloviating. I have to keep things like ropes, poisons, etc. kept under lock and key too. Jamaica me crazy.

.

 

LOL! Well, I do love to write and I love to de-compartmentalize.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

LOL! So effected...

 

Don't hurt yourself.

How old are you? As we get older, we realize that we create our own suffering out of subjective interpretation. That it's really our own state of mind that's at fault for how we experience something, someone or a situation.

 

Aiee! I can feel the pull to abandon everything and follow you, guruji! But I'm going to be loyal to my SatGurus:

Baba Muktananda, Rudi, Neem Karoli, Dilgo Khyentse, Karmapa, Kalu Rinpoche, Omraam.

Edited August 5, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

Ay! I can feel the pull to abandon everything and follow you, guruji! But I'm going to be loyal to my SatGurus:

Baba Muktananda, Rudi, Neem Karoli, Dilgo Khyentse, Karmapa, Kalu Rinpoche, Omraam.

 

Oh well, they're way better than I am. Specially Dilgo Khyentse and the Karmapa.

 

How old are you? As we get older, we realize that we create our own suffering out of subjective interpretation. That it's really our own state of mind that's at fault for how we experience something, someone or a situation.

 

I'd like to clear this up a bit. Because that can be used as an excuse as well. If it really is the other persons fault, walk away, ignore them, whatever, just don't kill yourself or the other person.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Oh well, they're way better than I am. Specially Dilgo Khyentse and the Karmapa.

 

 

 

Ah, but there's still time, Vajra-ji! At the rate you're (you + are ) going, you shall surely attain the Rainbow Body and be able to leave us Lesser Vehicles behind! (except maybe you can take your girlfriend?? she's cute and she is doing laugh yoga with you so nicely in your avatar)...maybe she can ride in the sidecar of your Rainbow Vehicle??? If you go, don't forget to write! oops, what am I saying ? of course you'll write!!

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited August 5, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Sunya]

 

 

you didn't get enough satisfaction posting as jesusfreak? or, hell, even if that wasn't you, you're still just another angry sarcastic twit. If you truly do have Gurus ask what sarcasm and anger does to your channels.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

you didn't get enough satisfaction posting as jesusfreak? or, hell, even if that wasn't you, you're still just another angry sarcastic twit. If you truly do have Gurus ask what sarcasm and anger does to your channels.

 

 

 

"You talking to me? You talking to me???"

 

 

-Travis Bickle

 

Read my posts Mikey. I am the funniest mo' fo' on this forum! I am Iam I am! Let's see some humor from you, sometime Mr. Flappy Lipperton! I no angry, I funny! Plus I can kick your aye in thumbwrestling anytime!

Edited August 5, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

Mikeal.

 

It's fabulous, I love getting all this attention. You know when you were a school kid and you really liked somebody, but you were to scared to actually show your feelings so instead you pulled her pony tales and called her names, but you really had a crush on her? I think that's what's going on here.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Mikeal.

 

It's fabulous, I love getting all this attention. You know when you were a school kid and you really liked somebody, but you were to scared to actually show your feelings so instead you pulled her pony tales and called her names, but you really had a crush on her? I think that's what's going on here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

you didn't get enough satisfaction posting as jesusfreak? or, hell, even if that wasn't you, you're still just another angry sarcastic twit. If you truly do have Gurus ask what sarcasm and anger does to your channels.

 

 

 

Plus, that bunny is really gay. Not that there's anything wrong with it....

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loooooove iiiiiinnnnnn spaaaaaaaaaace!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aetherous]

But seriously...this is waaaaaaaaaaay off topic. If you guys want to flirt/argue, please do it in PM, or at the very least take it to the off topic section. Just out of courtesy for others? Thanks.

[contrivedname!]

how is praising the king-of-fixation-on-buddhism off topic? he is the supreme self pervading all existence (of course while dependently originated ) but i am sure this is a subtlety you are missing non-buddhist.

 

@ vaj: right now i am actually flirting with you and your girlfriend; i hate leaving others out

 

@micaelz: uhoh another abusive post from Mr. ad-hom-people-for-their-precieved-ad-homs better watch out i might cry man. by the way dude i am the master of sock puppetry so jesus freak musta bean me (sorry, read: my split-internet personality)

 

@songs: cant you tell? he already knows what makes a buddha and what they experience, so he must already have rainbow boday (intentional sic, you idiot) its just since he is already a fully realized bodhisattva TM, he returns to the make the foray into our ignorance to make us enlightened today

 

now in seriousness, apologies for not responding to your answers to my question in the other thread, vh, it just kind of exploded and i saw no more need to give input there.

 

heres an interesting thought (off topic for this thread): if existence is so beginningless, etc. how did one dude begin a religion that narrowly explains this infinite quality of existence, and all the other dudes who sought to do the same are wrong? what is it that gives this exclusive claim on the knowledge of reality as filtered through one human's experiential lens?

 

can the human mind even comprehend ultimate "truth"? if it can, given different circumstances and temperments, would all term it in the same way? if it cant are all these spiritual traditions (yes even the exhalted buddhadharma) only partial truths or non-truths?

 

is it possible to attain "buddhadharma" w/out being a buddhist or even being ignorant of the existence of buddhism?

 

how does a buddhist claiming exclusive interpretation of reality differ from a christian doing the same? besides the fact that one denies eternalism or nihlism and one endorses eternalism?

 

is it possible that the buddha, who none of us knew personally, sought to refute what he felt were errors in the teaching of his teachers, not necessarily errors in vedanta, and that the chasm of difference was created later on by people attached to one system or the other?

 

maybe if one is fixated on a 'middle way' the best medicine wouldnt be the doctrine espousing a middle path? this may beg another question: if one is fixated on what is considered a middle path are they truly free from the extremes of eternalism or nihlism, or merely attempting to suppress ideas such as this?

 

does the understanding of brahman necessarily imply a state of absorbtion into an infinite will dictating the universe? if not necessarily is it possible that brahman could be a moniker pointing to the interconnectedness of beings?

 

these are all thoughts that come to me when i read through the pages and pages written on these topics. does anyone else have some similar thoughts? would anyone care to hazard some answers to these questions?

 

chris

[Vajrahridaya]

LOL! Go within young skywalker, go within...

 

Read some good Mahayana texts...

 

Re-read some of my past posts because I've answered most of these questions if not all already. Oh yeah, there's no endless memory on this site is there?

 

Ah, I may say something later... who knows. Seem's pointless to talk to dense darkies who think there's an alien invasion and don't even follow the understanding of dependent origination.

 

But, I might give it a whirl.

 

I wonder why people like sitting in my bowels?

Edited August 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

@songs: cant you tell? he already knows what makes a buddha and what they experience, so he must already have rainbow boday (intentional sic, you idiot) its just since he is already a fully realized bodhisattva TM, he returns to the make the foray into our ignorance to make us enlightened today

 

At least you know something... Lets not talk about my meditation experiences... eh? You just wouldn't believe them anyway.

 

now in seriousness, apologies for not responding to your answers to my question in the other thread, vh, it just kind of exploded and i saw no more need to give input there.

 

You really don't need to fake kindness when all you have is congested feelings to share.

 

Small world is for small minds.

 

heres an interesting thought (off topic for this thread): if existence is so beginningless, etc. how did one dude begin a religion that narrowly explains this infinite quality of existence, and all the other dudes who sought to do the same are wrong? what is it that gives this exclusive claim on the knowledge of reality as filtered through one human's experiential lens?

 

Not wrong, just incomplete. Because due to dependent origination, the level of complexity of this simply empty/full cosmos is ascertained. Excuse me, I'm going to be kind of wrathful with you here, because your so sarcastic all the time... It's a reflection of lack of higher chakra capacity. You need some real third eye opening. Psychic powers are actually lower chakra abilities by the way, third chakra even. Cats are psychic, though quite subjective about their interpretations. Demons are psychic too.

 

Anyway, that lens of the Buddha was huge and wide, variable like a branch that holds strong to it's rooted source, but bends according to the wind. He taught in many different ways for different capacities. He was like no other teacher before him, known to anthropology. He was very clear in way's that were previously unknown. He made no experiential, emotional, nor intellectual excuses for falling short from the liberated view of the real nature of things. He taught nothing less than what any group of people or person needed in order to evolve. He spoke for 40 years. Then he continued to teach from the Peerless Deva realm some of the higher Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings. The clarity of his explanations are unmatched. That's just objectively speaking.

 

can the human mind even comprehend ultimate "truth"? if it can, given different circumstances and temperments, would all term it in the same way? if it cant are all these spiritual traditions (yes even the exhalted buddhadharma) only partial truths or non-truths?

 

Buddhadharma is the most complicated explanation system with such a clean connection all the way through. Of course if you lack practice and experience through the practice. Your going to miss the point. Humility is a key to actually receiving transmission directly and openly with any fruit. It's Kali Yuga by the way too. As in a majority of the human beings are caught up in material things, psychic powers, false interpretations of spiritual experiences. He's a haven in the Kali Yuga due to his clarity. He didn't fumble around with metaphors unless they were succinct and to the point.

 

is it possible to attain "buddhadharma" w/out being a buddhist or even being ignorant of the existence of buddhism?

 

Check out Pratyekabuddha... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha

 

how does a buddhist claiming exclusive interpretation of reality differ from a christian doing the same? besides the fact that one denies eternalism or nihlism and one endorses eternalism?

 

It's not exclusive in the same way. If you can't see that... put on your reading glasses and pull out your meditation cushion. Read some of my past posts. Clear that sty in your eye... These questions have been answered. It's also quite obvious considering the fruit of the spiritual traditions. Buddhism is quite the disarmament program of religions. It has the largest cannon, as well as the most enlightened beings, both known and not popularly known. Also, the level of change that Hinduism has gone through post Buddha is just staggering. Plus I don't damn other people for doing their religion correctly. I feel that they will evolve their capacity over time to come to understand the Buddha (Awake) teachings.

 

Read the 31 planes of existence. Understand the limitations of the Jhanas, read the different texts by all the different religious teachers of antiquity in open comparison seeing commonality and subtle differences. Get some real deep beyond 5 sense experience that shocks the bajesus out a ya. Even Wikipedia has some good information on it that you can learn a thing or two from.

 

Read my posts with an actual objective mind that defines my words contextually outside of your pre-conception.

 

Not possible without meditative experience at least past the 4th jhana for the most part. When you get into the formless meditations your entering into and illuminating your alaya vijnana. Also, if you've experienced Tandra yet, you've experienced seeing your subconscious files flitter by without order, illuminating and de-knotting your subjectivity ties, then you start getting some objectivity.

 

is it possible that the buddha, who none of us knew personally, sought to refute what he felt were errors in the teaching of his teachers, not necessarily errors in vedanta, and that the chasm of difference was created later on by people attached to one system or the other?

 

No, he said his teaching was a teaching that did not exist pryer and he refuted the Vedas pretty well. Study, study, study.

 

maybe if one is fixated on a 'middle way' the best medicine wouldnt be the doctrine espousing a middle path? this may beg another question: if one is fixated on what is considered a middle path are they truly free from the extremes of eternalism or nihlism, or merely attempting to suppress ideas such as this?

 

You haven't yet understood what middleway means. I'll just be blunt. If you did... you would understand that the Buddha taught the flow, not transcendent experiences to be called "ATMAN" and eternal witnesses that are just merely the fruit of absorption methods reified as Self.

 

does the understanding of brahman necessarily imply a state of absorbtion into an infinite will dictating the universe? if not necessarily is it possible that brahman could be a moniker pointing to the interconnectedness of beings?

 

As defined in the texts of the path? Yes, it does the first, not the latter. But... that doesn't mean it's a bad path... it still leads to higher rebirth and greater ability to be cognizant non-conceptually. Which is what it takes to understand dependent origination directly.

 

The particular fruit is derived from what seed is planted. View predicates outcome of the practice. It's all about the subtle intuitive interpretation of the methods outcome, not the method itself. View is what it's about in Buddhism, not just sitting, because your just seeing directly your capacity to revolve when you go into your unconscious mind, your not seeing the dharma unless that seed has been planted. You should go through and really read the thread about Buddha's True Self that Dwai started. If your really interested in some answers to these questions that have been answered. Why not? Or are you just smugly Ad-Homing me with sarcasm because I'm so dense and stuck up, while your so down to Earth?

these are all thoughts that come to me when i read through the pages and pages written on these topics. does anyone else have some similar thoughts? would anyone care to hazard some answers to these questions?

 

chris

 

These questions have been answered thoroughly over the past few months.

 

Anyway... you are a sentient being, and I wish you to know the Truth of the nature of things, just as I do for myself and my girlfriend, my Momma (who's a great yogini), and everyone.

 

Now, if one can conceive of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as being non-static and each one dependent upon the other for existence thereby empty in and of themselves, and Brahman is just the empty realization of this, and not a divine will that starts the mess every cosmic eon. Then maybe you have something there, but Hinduism doesn't really teach like this. In the texts, these beings are considered forms of the one divine will that is the source and end of the multiplicity of existence. Even the hindu Tantra sees the chakra colors and mantras as static based upon a static source of being. Buddhist Tantra does not treat the chakras in the same mannor, because there is no static being. Buddhism also shows how one can manifest enlightenment in different ways through Tantra depending on the path one takes and how one focuses on the chakras with what mantras and colors, as well as intention. Because Buddhism is dependent origination no primal source, while Hinduism is static source religion.

 

Brahman is absolutely real on it's own, without the need for a cosmos according to Hinduism.

 

This does not equate with the Buddha's shunyata.

 

I hope we can have a discussion without sarcasm. I'm not in NYC anymore and a lot has changed because of my surroundings. There is more softness here in Florida in the energy vibrations. It's nicer here.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

A small expose on the genesis of the various traditions.

 

The Old Testiment. Full of wars, revenge, some wisdom of a mundane type. As in only pertaining to God realms and loving a God who is the source of all existence before which nothing was.

 

Christianity: Jesus preached for 3 years, spoke in riddles, we don't know much about those missing 30 years, except maybe something out of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. Mostly though his teachings were all quite hard to interpret with clarity and due to this, there was much beheading, witch burning, corruption to a degree unlike most any other religion.

 

Islam: Now God is a formless God that talks to some prophets, Mohammed had a vision in a cave, then started lots of wars and spawned many war crazy tyrants to kill in the name of religion. Wisdom came about when it got influenced by Hinduism later on.

 

Hinduism: So many different sources and factions that both like the Vedas and do not, like South Indian Siddhar traditions from Tamil Nadu that did not, and Brahmanism that did. Shankara brought many of them together again through some crypto-Buddhism merged with some Upanishads. Started a system of Monks fashioned and influenced by the Buddhist tradition. Took the two truths model of Nagarjuna and re-interpreted it limitedly through Upanishadic theory of a single divine source to all existence.

 

Taoism: Some good teachings that seem quite Buddhist, but from many different sources, I-Ching, Confucius, Tao de Ching, Chuang Tsu, but now highly influenced by Buddhism at this point.

 

Buddhism: 1 clear source like clear running water from a spring. Buddha preached for 40 years, was very clear, talked about the different stages of meditation. Actually set out to start a clear based religion with clear goals and methods of self transformation. Spoke in many different ways for different people and deities alike, he was just so clear, come on guys. Admit it. He's the genius source of Buddhism. He is a Sammasambuddha. Unlike Jesus, his disciples actually attained high states of liberation. Oh... it's just so vast the many things he said recorded in the earliest recordings and the Mahayana Sutras pertaining to his time on Earth, I love it and it satisfies me greatly. We have 3 turnings of the wheel, and some call Dzogchen the 4th. They are all linked together very beautifully though not everyone is ready for higher turnings so they take the lower turnings which is fine and is leading in the same direction. Sure there are arguments and what not, but they all agree that the Buddha spoke a Dharma was not heard before and is defined within his 3 jewels, the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha... which Shankara later took. He also very clearly defined what the Buddhadharma was and was not. It's clearly by his lucid explanations, none of the other spiritual traditions, which if you read the 31 planes, you can see that the other traditions fall under any of those Samsaric realms as their source guides and God or gods.

 

I am self satisfied, and it originates dependent upon knowing both experientially and intellectually the power of the Buddhadharma and how much more clear it is from all other systems of philosophy and spirituality on Planet Earth. It's complexity is it's clarity.

 

Not everyone is ready for that. People have reactions in their mental/emotional system when they see the Dharma and they follow these reactions identifying with their thoughts and feelings and don't see how conditioned they are by so much pre-conception based upon limited experience that they miss the boat.

 

Take care dudes and dudets. May you all jump on the boat at some point.

 

Thanks for reading!

 

To Ralis and those that asked what the difference is between my fundimentalism and others.

 

I don't see that those following other religions go to hell forever. But, rather if they do their religion well, they will eventually be born with a capacity to understand the Buddhadharma.

 

So, all goodness flows towards the Buddhadharma, no matter what stream of entry starts your higher capacity voyage.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Tao99]

There's nothing "wrong" with sarcasm (in Taoism). It's just another way in critical thinking to make a point, and critical thinking is good. And one doesn't need to be serious all the time - it's ok to joke around and have a laugh.

 

Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner, and make a boogey man out of every little thing. In the process you forget what does matter, what is the point, and get lost in trivia, delusional "rules", and unprovable metaphysics.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

There's nothing "wrong" with sarcasm (in Taoism). It's just another way in critical thinking to make a point, and critical thinking is good. And one doesn't need to be serious all the time - it's ok to joke around and have a laugh.

 

Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner, and make a boogey man out of every little thing. In the process you forget what does matter, what is the point, and get lost in trivia, delusional "rules", and unprovable metaphysics.

 

Nice post. But what you have said applies to others as well as to some Buddhists.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

There's nothing "wrong" with sarcasm (in Taoism). It's just another way in critical thinking to make a point, and critical thinking is good. And one doesn't need to be serious all the time - it's ok to joke around and have a laugh.

 

Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner, and make a boogey man out of every little thing. In the process you forget what does matter, what is the point, and get lost in trivia, delusional "rules", and unprovable metaphysics.

 

No Mr Tao99. That's not me, sarcasm has the intention to cut and to subvert. Being Facetious is something else. "You Buddhists", see how your intention is debasing and cutting? "You Taoists" don't even know what level of emotion your expressions are emanating from. (I don't believe that about all Taoists) Plus if a persons only way of communication has pretty much been sarcasm, than that's a tall tale sign. At first, sure, it's fine, let's all have a good laugh. As I've been doing. But, sometimes someone needs to get slapped up-side the head for their constant stupidity. These people pretend to know a person. I never make assumptions as such. I just said, if your always being sarcastic, that's a sign of higher chakra closedness. Because it's hiding insecurity.

 

Nice post. But what you have said applies to others as well as to some Buddhists.

 

Be well!

 

Yes, it's an individual thing. The idea that, "You Buddhists"... is quite silly because look at these Tibetan Masters who lost their country and families and lots of their traditions history and scriptures. They're so playful and full of spunk! The Dalai Lama too laughs all the time.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[hyok]

@ vaj: right now i...

 

LOL. Vaj.