A question for Vaj the Buddhist

[gendao]

Yes ralis, there is a hierarchy. There is the more intelligent and than the less so.

As in all things..

 

There are more advanced methods for those ready for them.

And less advanced methods for those who aren't.

 

For example, take "John Chang's" Ba Lei Quan...vs Tae Kwon Do. To sing "Kum Ba New Age Yah" and claim these are all "equal" is sheer nuts!

 

So, enlightenment is the dissolution of all concepts and constant direct experience of reality, instead? Always seeing the moon, not the finger?

 

I still don't understand what "dependent arising" or origination means, though? As opposed to independent origination?

Edited June 23, 2010 by vortex

[Vajrahridaya]

Bullshit, the ratio of enlightenment among martial artists who meditate is MUCH higher than in those who just meditate. Those who meditate and don't practice MA have about the same ratio of enlightenment as the general public, and by MA I mean the killing arts, not the sport ones.

 

Your idea of enlightenment is different from Buddhas.

 

Also, Buddhadharma does not take meditation and the experiences of meditation as the path, only as a method for insight into self grasping and it's many layers. I practice Vajrayana which uses lots of movement, postures, mudra, visualization, energy practices, breath work... etc. I also practice Dzogchen.

 

Also, absolutely no explanations of anything EVER are required.

 

Because you don't take up "right view" as a guide.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Y'all just threw a bunch of gasoline on the Vajrahridaya fire, so stand back! It's going to come pouring out with ultimate certainty and condemnation of all lesser paths. (By the way, I don't appreciate clear, simple and direct communication from him unless you are already a long-time arhat).

Well, maybe this will confine him to this thread for awhile, so we can avoid the take-over that was happening before he got married 6 months ago.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

So, enlightenment is the dissolution of all concepts and constant direct experience of reality, instead? Always seeing the moon, not the finger?

 

Not really the dissolution... well I suppose it depends on what you mean by that. But, one is not illusion-ed by any concepts anymore, yes. One still has concepts, but they are always cognized with clarity. One wouldn't say the constant experience of reality, rather, the middle path, neither real nor not real. But yes... for all practical reasons... the clear cognition of reality.

 

I still don't understand what "dependent arising" or origination means, though? As opposed to independent origination?

 

Here's a link... I suggest reading all of it, as it's not that long. Pratityasamutpada

 

Independent origination would be paths that teach that all things arise from themselves, or that all things arise from an independent self, as either one with it, like Monism teaches, or in a dualistic fashion like Christianity teaches.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ShaktiMama]

don't know much about this subject but

 

i think you are all buddhaful

 

s

[Vajrahridaya]

don't know much about this subject but

 

i think you are all buddhaful

 

s

 

A great realization to be is to be able to see the naturally liberated quality of all beings, even if they are throwing ice balls at cha.

[adept]

What's "blinkered"?

 

Blinkered, meaning you have your blinkers on. As racehorses do, so they are unable to see the other horses in the race.

It's a metaphor. You probably use metaphors a lot in your superior form of dogmatic, fundamentalist Buddhism.

A form of tunnel vision where you don't see another persons point of view, or opinion.

You actually believe you are right, and everybody else is wrong.

Actually, seeing as you are so extreme in your views, and your defense of them, then it may be some form of mental illness.

You have a superiority complex. :lol:

[gendao]

Here's a link... I suggest reading all of it, as it's not that long. Pratityasamutpada

 

Independent origination would be paths that teach that all things arise from themselves, or that all things arise from an independent self, as either one with it, like Monism teaches, or in a dualistic fashion like Christianity teaches.

Ahh, so basically dependent origination says that all concepts are relative & thus none can exist on their own. IOW, they are perceptual in nature only - and don't "exist" independently on their own. They exist only in the mind, and the mind can only deal with concepts, not Reality directly

The illuminated mind, on the contrary, does not apply the conceptual categories of "being" and "non-being" to the things of experience. All things in the conventional reality arise, remain and cease in relation to other things:

I guess this is like dualism or yin/yang relativity in philosophical Taoism?

 

So, when you transcend such dualism & the "conceptual middleman," no concepts "exist" anymore? All that's "left" after this then is a substrate of an undefinable "emptiness."

As far as one analyzes, one finds only dependence, relativity, and emptiness, and their dependence, relativity, and emptiness" ad infinitum

This is why dependent origination contradicts monism. Although both may ascertain that everything is relative and interdependent, monism attributes this as due to everything being part of ONE whole (unity/universe)...whereas Buddhism would take it one step further and say that concepts can only be defined through perceiving relative differences and therefore no concepts can exist independently by definition. Thus, even this "unity" doesn't truly exist and true "existence" devoid of any perceptual concepts is really just an empty ZERO. Edited June 23, 2010 by vortex

[Vajrahridaya]

 

A form of tunnel vision where you don't see another persons point of view, or opinion.

 

 

I see the opinions and other perspectives. I just don't agree with all of them and debate that. Debate has a long history in Buddhism starting with the Buddha. It works to refine the view and diminish the ego. For instance, you are reacting here and you feel offended, creating violence. There is no need. One can disagree without resorting to such things.

 

You actually believe you are right, and everybody else is wrong.

 

No, I experience that the Buddha is right and those that agree with Buddhas are also right. If you want liberation from Samsaric experience that is. The Buddha did not teach that there are many paths to Buddhahood, and he listed the reasons why in so many different ways.

 

There are plenty of Suttas and Sutras that talk about this.

Actually, seeing as you are so extreme in your views, and your defense of them, then it may be some form of mental illness.

You have a superiority complex. :lol:

 

Actually my view is not extreme. But Buddhism is a superior tradition, yes.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited June 23, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

My view is fine thank you. It's just not blinkered like yours.

Hi Adept,

 

I agree with what you said that there are many who have awakened (and will continue to awaken) without the need to bind themselves to a particular tradition. Names and labels are merely conventions after all, and in the bigger picture, in the absolute sense, they are all meaningless jargon.

 

But in a relative world, it might be helpful for those who want to be more practical in their approach towards awakening, in that they might want to learn some relevant methodology that can transport them quickly towards this understanding of what awakening truly is, and what can take them there without much fuss. I was wondering if you can prescribe a relatively practical way that can be shown to such inquiring minds?

 

According to the view you hold, you are without blinkers, so in fact, this means you are able to 'see more' than those who have blinkers. I too am blinkered, so i am willing to learn how, in what practical, step-by-step manner, did you arrive at this unblinkered state of being? Assuming i am of dull mind, what will you prescribe as an aid to overcome this dullness?

 

I am sincerely wanting to learn. I found the Sutta (mentioned in my first post here) to be very relevant and practical in its erudition - a very simple, logical path that can bring one to the banks of liberation. Thru reflecting on it mindfully against daily, personal interactions, and against the arisings in the mind, i have found it to be a simple, straightforward, no bull explanation on what to do if one wants to 'attain' to true and complete cessation of mental anguish and frustrations. Those who are more advanced than me have verified that there are even deeper layers of transcendental insights to be gleaned from it, but alas, i have not reached their level of brilliance. Thats why i said i still have blinkers on.

 

If you, or anyone else here for that matter, who can expound a more concise teaching on the path to liberation, i, and many others here i'm quite certain, would be most grateful for said teaching.

 

I know there will be those who would do the dismissive thing and say, oh, just drop the blinkers, and all will become clear. My blinkers happen to be quite welded on thru years of ingrained bad habits, some i know about, while others are beyond my knowledge, popping up only now and then to disrupt my apparent self-projected harmony and quietude. So what, in your esteemed experience, is the simplest and most direct, easy to follow method that can help me to disengage the welding, so to speak?

 

Heartfelt thanks if you can offer me a key to unlock these heavy chains that bind. I know there many systems available where its claimed they have the key, but having tried many of them (over 30 years of vain attempts), i still found the key offered in the Buddhist teachings to be the most pragmatic and without vagueness. Too bad people have to attach a kind of guilt-by-association thing on them, thereby creating a lot of unnecessary aversions in the process. Because of this, only those free of hang-ups seem to be able to take the teachings to heart without having to call themselves Buddhist or whatever - again, more labels. Such a waste.

 

I truly look forward to any wise methods (from anyone please) that can be easily understood and applied in this particular regard.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ahh, so basically dependent origination says that all concepts are relative & thus none can exist on their own. IOW, they are perceptual in nature only - and don't "exist" independently on their own. They exist only in the mind, and the mind can only deal with concepts, not Reality directlyI guess this is like dualism or yin/yang relativity in philosophical Taoism?

 

All phenomena are interdependent, not just concepts, but also the mind and all the different minds are all interdependent and without inherent essence.

 

What you said about Taoism depends on the type of Taoism as some Taoism thinks of the Tao as a static and unchanging source behind all phenomena. Buddha would criticize this view as Samsaric. Even the Dharmakaya or Tathagatagarbha in Buddhism does not have inherent existence and is basically the experience of insight into inter-dependent origination, so is not an independent source of things. These are describing the insight of emptiness not an inherent essence.

 

So, when you transcend such dualism & the "conceptual middleman," no concepts "exist" anymore? All that's "left" after this then is a substrate of an undefinable "emptiness."This is why dependent origination contradicts monism.

 

No, emptiness is not a substratum. It's the quality of all phenomena, so emptiness does not inherently exist either since it's the quality of phenomena that don't inherently exist. This leads to a subtler clarity than the belief in ones experience is a substratum. This also leads to an entirely different way of seeing how the universe works and cycles and what is necessary for constant liberation beyond the unconscious cycling of the masses. As in, one wouldn't take refuge in an experience of formless bliss in meditation calling this the universal Self of all beyond subject and object. One would understand that this is just a state of altered consciousness and not a substratum.

 

Although both may ascertain that everything is relative and interdependent, monism attributes this as due to everything being part of ONE whole (unity/universe)...whereas Buddhism would take it one step further and say that concepts can only be defined through perceiving relative differences and therefore no concepts can exist independently by definition. Thus, even this "unity" doesn't truly exist and true "existence" devoid of any perceptual concepts is really just an empty ZERO.

 

Even Zero is empty of inherent existence. Emptiness doesn't mean zero. It doesn't mean nothingness. It means malleable, and non-inherency.

 

Though one can have the meditative experience of zero and this experience arises dependently as well. The realization and luminosity of realization goes deeper than this experience of zero point energy, which arises dependent upon the fact that all things are empty, and that the awareness of mind can focus. Awareness can focus or waver because awareness is not static and unchanging either and arises dependently.

 

It's tough to think about this through concepts as one should have a direct intuitive experience and one can have this without closing ones eyes. As one experiences more deeply the insight of inter-dependent origination/emptiness, the easier it is to understand the logic of it.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Tibetan tantric Vajrayana practitioners highest rites are usually not discussed. Some rites are very ancient and if one is able to pass through this initiation, then one is considered enlightened. I first heard about this rite back in 1987 from a Western Lama by the name of Ken McLeod, who had completed 2-3 year Tibetan style retreats. The famous Yeshe Tsogyal and many other so called enlightened ones have gone through this rite.

 

The male practitioner is given a female consort and through certain sexual rites, the 5 meats are collected and consumed. One must consume these meats without any discriminating taste or judgment of any kind. If one is able to transcend judgment, then one is considered enlightened.

 

The meats are: Urine, feces, human flesh, sperm and menstrual blood.

 

I bring this up to show that Buddhism has another side. This is considered the real Tantra and not the play stuff Westerners are given.

 

BTW, I am not making this up!

[gendao]

All phenomena are interdependent, not just concepts, but also the mind and all the different minds are all interdependent and without inherent essence.

So, if all phenomena are without inherent essence - doesn't that make them all "concepts?"

No, emptiness is not a substratum. It's the quality of all phenomena, so emptiness does not inherently exist either since it's the quality of phenomena that don't inherently exist. Only relatively. This leads to a subtler clarity than the belief in ones experience is a substratum. This also leads to an entirely different way of seeing how the universe works and cycles and what is necessary for constant liberation beyond the unconscious cycling of the masses.

Would "nothingness" be a better "concept?" I kind of see what you mean here though, even "existence" itself is a concept...that doesn't really exist.

It's tough to think about this through concepts as one should have a direct intuitive experience and one can have this without closing ones eyes.

I agree. Ultimately, I'm going to have to have the experience myself to really understand all this... It's really hard to explain or understand nonconceptuality conceptually... Edited June 23, 2010 by vortex

[Vajrahridaya]

Because of this, only those free of hang-ups seem to be able to take the teachings to heart without having to call themselves Buddhist or whatever - again, more labels. Such a waste.

 

If you take refuge in the triple gem, you are a practicing Buddhist, or a Buddha.

[Vajrahridaya]

So, if all phenomena are without inherent essence - doesn't that make them all "concepts?

 

Sure, but even non-conceptual is a concept and arises dependently and is not an independent phenomena as well. So, zero point experience happens due to the fact of multiplicity, this is interdependent. Concepts and no-concepts... it's all phenomena. There is no substratum of refuge. Only insight into the nature of things is refuge, even insight into self reference and seeing that as originating dependently.

 

"Would "nothingness" be a better "concept?" I kind of see what you mean here though, even "existence" itself is a concept...that doesn't really exist.I agree. Ultimately, I'm going to have to have the experience myself to really understand all this... It's really hard to explain or understand nonconceptuality conceptually...

 

I re-wrote what I wrote a bit for more clarity above. So you might want to re-read it. Like I edited into the above. Emptiness doesn't mean nothingness. It doesn't mean empty like in a jar. It just means non-static existence basically it's the key to understanding how movement works and how relativity is.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

BTW, I am not making this up!

 

No you are not. All that you said is very true. But it's not absolutely necessary for liberation, though it can truly challenge and help one go beyond limitations. We practice this in Dzogchen in the Ganapuja but we just eat meat, considering the animals karma represented as the flesh of the animal as being integrated with our own so that when we realize liberation that they may also have a connection to us. Animals find it hard to evolve out of being an animal without help due to their capacity as an animal.

 

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche talks about this stuff in Crystal and the Way of Light.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Tibetan tantric Vajrayana practitioners highest rites are usually not discussed. Some rites are very ancient and if one is able to pass through this initiation, then one is considered enlightened... If one is able to transcend judgment, then one is considered enlightened.

 

 

 

 

What does it mean to be "considered enlightened"?

 

Who cares what one is 'considered'?

 

What counts is: what is 'enlightenment', is it a relative term, are there degrees of enlightenment and finally, who decides?

 

If I decide I am enlightened, and no one else does, what is the reality? Am I deluded? Is it possible that 'they' may decide I'm enlightened after I die?

 

What if you're enlightened, but nobody, even yourself realizes it? Would it make any difference?

 

Why do we seem obsessed with becoming enlightened? Why the focus on this? Why not be judged by the fruits of our actions and the light emanating from our being?

 

Someone who is enlightened does not speak of being enlightened, if they do, they are not.

 

 

Why do we care so much about this? Life does not become "easier", we just let go of certain troublesome aspects of our psyche. I do not believe being "enlightened" is a goal, rather, it is a by-product of right living and right mind.

 

My suspicion is, that for most of us (especially on this forum), are into enlarging the ego, becoming 'special' and perhaps powerful by becoming enlightened, rather than interested in becoming nobody. Becoming nobody is a prerequisite to becoming enlightened, whatever that means.

Edited June 23, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[yuanqi]

No you are not. All that you said is very true. But it's not absolutely necessary for liberation, though it can truly challenge and help one go beyond limitations. We practice this in Dzogchen in the Ganapuja but we just eat meat, considering the animals karma represented as the flesh of the animal as being integrated with our own so that when we realize liberation that they may also have a connection to us. Animals find it hard to evolve out of being an animal without help due to their capacity as an animal.

 

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche talks about this stuff in Crystal and the Way of Light.

sometimes i find that there are similarities to other paths. for instance in my own which is considered scientific by those that practice it and not philosophical simply because they have taken scriptures and interpreted them from a spiritual standpoint based on the results of our practices. so its considered factual and they know that if this is done and that is done then this is the result.

 

having to delve a little into the sattva, rajas and tamas here and into the virtuous and superficial essentials i will try to lay out how we look at it from a practical standpoint.

 

the five superficial essentials are liquor, meat, fish, wealth and coitus. those that possess the rajas or tamas attributes and practice our sadhana will not have soul-realisation. but if they practice the virtuous essentials the result is quite different.

 

the rajas and tamas mode of practicing sadhana with the help of the superficial rites are taken literally. however with the sattva mode of sadhana the "liquor" is the "ambrosia" or "nectar" that flows from the Sahasrara, this is "drank" with the help of consuming "meat" which leads me to the next one.

 

"Meat" is the tongue. with the Guru's instruction the tongue is entered into the palate cavity (Khechari Mudra). This is known as the sadhaka that consumes or eats meat, this causes speech to be stopped and if Pranakarma is executed all desires are controlled or stopped completely.

 

"Fish" or pair of fish in our tradition come from the Ganges(Ida) and Yamuna(Pingala)and swims in them. the actually breathing motion thru each nostril is considered the "fish". when a yogi can still the prana thru pranakarma and "eats" or "devours" the "fish" he is a fish eating sadhaka. meaning his breath is now in the sushumna.

 

"wealth" for instance is the yogi who as per the Gurus instructions has directly realized the Supreme Being thru AtmaKarma (Pranakarma, Kriyayoga etc etc) is the sadhaka who worships spiritual wealth.

 

"coitus" this is too much to properly explain with my limited understanding. LOL but it aint easy to achieve. basically it has to do with stilling the air in the head, practicing 1728 (INTERNAL) pranayamas (one sitting of course), big difference between this and external pranayamas, reaching the Kevala-Kumbhaka state and by placing the tongue upwards to taste the ambrosia(in this case it is akin to semen). This produces a blissful state or absolute bliss but of course inst the end all. LOL whew i am tired just writing that. LOl of course there are many minute details that i dont know yet.

 

 

anyway i thought i would share how we view it from a practical standpoint which differs from a literal translation. not saying they are even the exact same but interpretations and my point is only to show similarities and difference in many of the paths.

 

the literal stuff comes from the Kularnab tantra and others come from the Agamsar but with our take from a meditational standpoint.

 

peace

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Someone who is enlightened does not speak of being enlightened, if they do, they are not.

 

 

 

The Buddha said, "I am awake". He was the first in our eon to really define enlightenment with many descriptions in order that different perspectives could be had on the phenomena.

[Vajrahridaya]

sometimes i find that there are similarities to other paths. for instance in my own which is considered scientific by those that practice it and not philosophical simply because they have taken scriptures and interpreted them from a spiritual standpoint based on the results of our practices. so its considered factual and they know that if this is done and that is done then this is the result.

 

That is true, like the Alchemical Siddhas.

 

having to delve a little into the sattva, rajas and tamas here and into the virtuous and superficial essentials i will try to lay out how we look at it from a practical standpoint.

Sattva means pure, rajas means action and tamas means darkness. This is translated in different ways, sometimes as light, dim and dark. The 3 gunas takes different connotations in different contexts. Basically all of our universe is made of these 3 qualities, yes.

 

the five superficial essentials are liquor, meat, fish, wealth and coitus. those that possess the rajas or tamas attributes and practice our sadhana will not have soul-realisation. but if they practice the virtuous essentials the result is quite different.

 

Yes, these are generally only partaken with during a ceremony where various deities are called upon as well as the inner state of Rigpa, or illumination.

 

the rajas and tamas mode of practicing sadhana with the help of the superficial rites are taken literally. however with the sattva mode of sadhana the "liquor" is the "ambrosia" or "nectar" that flows from the Sahasrara, this is "drank" with the help of consuming "meat" which leads me to the next one.

 

"Meat" is the tongue. with the Guru's instruction the tongue is entered into the palate cavity (Khechari Mudra). This is known as the sadhaka that consumes or eats meat, this causes speech to be stopped and if Pranakarma is executed all desires are controlled or stopped completely.

 

"Fish" or pair of fish in our tradition come from the Ganges(Ida) and Yamuna(Pingala)and swims in them. the actually breathing motion thru each nostril is considered the "fish". when a yogi can still the prana thru pranakarma and "eats" or "devours" the "fish" he is a fish eating sadhaka. meaning his breath is now in the sushumna.

 

For those that don't know... Ida is the fire side or sun side of the central channel and pingala is the moon or cool side. Sushumna is the central channel where kundalini or the winds (prana) stills.

"wealth" for instance is the yogi who as per the Gurus instructions has directly realized the Supreme Being thru AtmaKarma (Pranakarma, Kriyayoga etc etc) is the sadhaka who worships spiritual wealth.

 

"coitus" this is too much to properly explain with my limited understanding. LOL but it aint easy to achieve. basically it has to do with stilling the air in the head, practicing 1728 (INTERNAL) pranayamas (one sitting of course), big difference between this and external pranayamas, reaching the Kevala-Kumbhaka state and by placing the tongue upwards to taste the ambrosia(in this case it is akin to semen). This produces a blissful state or absolute bliss but of course inst the end all. LOL whew i am tired just writing that. LOl of course there are many minute details that i dont know yet.

 

 

anyway i thought i would share how we view it from a practical standpoint which differs from a literal translation. not saying they are even the exact same but interpretations and my point is only to show similarities and difference in many of the paths.

 

the literal stuff comes from the Kularnab tantra and others come from the Agamsar but with our take from a meditational standpoint.

 

peace

 

Yes, these similar descriptions exist in Vajrayana which is originally Indian Tantric Buddhism but was moved to Tibet soon before the Muslims invaded India and destroyed most of Buddhism in India giving space for Hinduism, mostly the Hinduism of Shankaracharya to become the dominant religion of India again. Before this Buddhism was the dominant religion of India for 1,000 years.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

 

7) You cannot judge for youself whether you are enlightened.

 

 

Enlightenment isn't some big mystery. Of course enlightened masters know. If you don't know that you're awake, then you're not awake... very simple.

 

 

There are not "more" or "less" intelligent people, but pople who have different practices with their intelligence.

There is no "more" or "less" aware, but a matter of ratio as to where one's awareness is placed.

 

I'm sorry but... what planet do you live on? Seems like you don't understand the reality of differences at all. Why try ever so hard to lump everything into the same category? You're really going to run into problems once you start meeting people. Just open up a newspaper and see what's happening out here. Look at all those soldiers 'practicing' by killing others, or those lovely terrorists 'practicing' by blowing themselves up.

 

Wisdom and awareness arise together and can be likened to be the same. There is a lot of unawareness in this world.... Many dim lights. They all have the potential for vast wisdom, but there is a huge difference between actualized potential and dormant potential.

 

Well, anyone that says that one way is more complete than any other, will never become 'enlightened' in a million years !

 

Anyone that says 'know where you're going and understand the goal' is dumb then. You have to give it up and go get lost in the wilderness because apparently roaming aimlessly in the forest is superior to understanding the best path and what the goal entails. Is that your position? That's like saying: get a lobotomy before getting into a car on the highway. Yes there are some paths more complete than others. Not every path gets to the most superior destination. Enlightenment isn't as easy as you have been lead to believe.

 

If you believe that all paths are the same, then you must believe that enlightenment occurs without any conditions. In that case, you might as well sit on your couch and watch movies all day. Don't even think about enlightenment, forget about it. Don't make any effort to change your habits and transform yourself into a more loving open confident and connected being. Just don't. There is no path! I really don't get how people can believe this and yet practice... Practice is essential! You gotta DO!

 

Now I think the issue is that people think that Buddhist enlightenment is simply dissolving the self and having nondual experence. If that was it then yes Buddhism is just another method, but that's NOT the goal. Nonduality is only halfway there. Other mystical traditions stop at 'dissolving the self' but Buddhists (should) keep going. Enlightenment is when there is realization that there is nothing BUT the interplay of phenomena which all lack 'self-ness'. There is no separation (since everything is interdependent) but I am NOT you. There is a big difference between saying You and I are the same, and saying you and I are interdependent and lack self, but still exist relatively.

 

Enlightenment is not a state of consciousness, because all states arise interdependently and don't last. You can't focus your mind for 30 minutes to become enlightened and then fall back again. That's just an impermanent state which arose dependent on you concentrating. Enlightenment is realization, an insight, which does occur dependently but lasts permanently and encompasses all states of consciousness. It is the realization that all states of mind, all phenomena experienced by mind, and mind itself are all interdependent arisings.Not two, not one.

 

The language used by mystics allows you to get a peak into their realizations. Once you understand the 'map' then you can clearly see who is where. This sort of hierarchal view bothers some people. Maybe because they really want to believe that we're all on an Escalator to Heaven. In my experience, debating with people like Vajra, who is a very experienced practitioner, brought up fear and anxiety about my own path. It really made me question whether I truly understood the path and goal. It tore my life apart for a couple years, but was well worth it. Not many people allow themselves to be torn up like that. I found it be very positive, eventually

Edited June 24, 2010 by mikaelz

[Gerard]

[C T]

[Birch]

"Buddhist model is quite accurate"

 

As you know by now;-)...THIS

 

emphasis on:

 

- model

- quite accurate

 

Possibly "as" accurate as other models, still, model is as model does.

 

I really feel in an extraordinary place right now to have as many options for models as I do (and yes, it has been my choice to learn them) and so doing I have:

 

- come to recognize, in many ways, unity amongst all

- come to desire to defend the multiplicity (the 10,ooo things) of ways of understanding

- become concerned that although Buddhism is very much a structurally "right view" - a danger lies in it's adoption to the exclusion of other systems that themselves provide paths to enlightened views AND healing and well-being to all.