Is This The Truth About Kundalini?

[ralis]

Eh... you just don't get... at least not yet. You're still not a rock, so you have the malleable consciousness of a sentient being. I'm sorry... nothing I've ever said has made a single dent in your relentless attack on Buddhism.

 

You can quote endlessly from bitter and jaded people that reflect your ideas. You find what you seek for.

 

So be it!

 

Also... your statement reveals how little you understand emptiness and dependent origination. There is no concrete force. This seems to always fly over your head, Mr. Mensa.

 

It's actually kind of sad really... you must have really been hurt by Christianity and the information that you have read or read into. Maybe you've carried this energy pattern with you for lifetimes and it keeps recycling experiences that solidify this view for you?

 

None the less, it's dependently originated and empty of inherent existence, so is not solid and you do have the power to drop it at any point in time? You too can see more clearly and free yourself from black and white interpretation.

 

Why did you drop the last sentence that I can drop karma at anytime? Can't live up to my challenge?

[Vajrahridaya]

Why did you drop the last sentence that I can drop karma at anytime? Can't live up to my challenge?

 

I was actually already in the middle of editing it before you kept quoting it again... If you look at it now, that's my final response to your post. I actually wasn't even trying to re-post it and the editing of the double posts were not one after the other, so you're kind of going back and forth through time by seeing the different posts and their different manifestations.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

I was actually already in the middle of editing it before you kept quoting it again... If you look at it now, that's my final response to your post. I actually wasn't even trying to re-post it and the editing of the double posts were not one after the other, so you're kind of going back and forth through time by seeing the different posts and their different manifestations.

 

I still consider that statement valid and probably a Freudian slip. Also if karma is so empty, then why discuss it ad infinitum? By discussing it you make it more concrete.

Edited December 12, 2010 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

The incessant focusing on karma and past lives, can be distracting and therefor create obstacles to practice. Discussion of the issues serves no real benefit to anyone.

 

I think what hurts us is not so much the focus on karma, but a really simplistic and wishful-thinking revenge-fantasies based karma.

 

But, what's easier: to get people to develop a more realistic view, or to get people to drop the whole issue altogether? It may be easier to drop the issue of karma altogether as an expedient means. However, people still want to have a sense that their practice and life is not wasted, that in the next life, they'll be less stupid and better off than in this one. How can we support this narrative of improvement and continuation? Also, many people are uncomfortable that evil people get away with their evil without punishment. That's where the transcendent karma concept comes from. So if you want to get rid of the transcendent karma concept, you have to speak to all those concerns satisfactorily. The key word is "satisfactorily" as opposed to say, dismissively.

 

In my opinion, the easier option in this case is not a better option. I think our ideas about karma are idiotic for the most part, especially when we think of concrete ways of how karma might manifest. But the idea of a mood is not a bad one I think. If you don't like the idea of a mood, why don't you like it? Can you explain it?

 

I notice that there is definitely continuation between my day awareness and my dream awareness. If I am agitated during the day, my dreams can become agitated too. If I am peaceful during the day, my dreams tend to be peaceful. I notice that the mood has a continuation. To me that's a beneficial knowledge.

 

I don't consider myself to be chained to my past. No way. All of my being is ready to change at any moment. But if I don't actively intend to change, what happens? Inertia. Inertia is intentional and meaningful too. So there is no bondage and neither myself nor Buddha believed in permanent accumulations of any kind. Buddha believed that karma was flexible and fluid and you could alter it significantly in one life. Karma is intent and the only limit to altering intent is one's beliefs. So I think for people with enlightened and examined beliefs, there is a possibility of fast change. For people with dogmatic and inflexible beliefs which result from lack of examination, there is a lesser possibility of change. But all in all the possibility for change is huge.

Edited December 12, 2010 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

Well, that must be why you might be a little confused about what Dzogchen teaches. Dzogchen is Buddhism at it's best, it's the experience of all the Buddhas teachings. Also the Buddha didn't manifest the rainbow body because he had too many disciples that didn't stick to their vows. Wheel turners will generally not attain Jalus. Padmasambhava attained jalus because he was sure to only teach very ripe students and he didn't have too many students that broke their vows. The Buddha taught everybody and anybody, and this effects the bodies energy due to connecting with that amount of people on the level that he did. Dzogchen texts explain it better than I can. Anyway... he left through the 4th jhana to the peerless deva realm in order to keep teaching in the celestial. Why not attain a high jhana and go talk with him and have the discussion with him yourself?

 

 

 

I was just trying to make a point, that people should just study Dzogchen

 

Don't worry about any other buddhist teaching.

 

Dzogchen is the same enlightenment as Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

All talk about karma etc., seriously makes me want to vomit out of sheer boredom.

Edited December 12, 2010 by alwayson

[ralis]

I think what hurts us is not so much the focus on karma, but a really simplistic and wishful-thinking revenge-fantasies based karma.

 

But, what's easier: to get people to develop a more realistic view, or to get people to drop the whole issue altogether? It may be easier to drop the issue of karma altogether as an expedient means. However, people still want to have a sense that their practice and life is not wasted, that in the next life, they'll be less stupid and better off than in this one. How can we support this narrative of improvement and continuation? Also, many people are uncomfortable that evil people get away with their evil without punishment. That's where the transcendent karma concept comes from. So if you want to get rid of the transcendent karma concept, you have to speak to all those concerns satisfactorily. The key word is "satisfactorily" as opposed to say, dismissively.

 

In my opinion, the easier option in this case is not a better option. I think our ideas about karma are idiotic for the most part, especially when we think of concrete ways of how karma might manifest. But the idea of a mood is not a bad one I think. If you don't like the idea of a mood, why don't you like it? Can you explain it?

 

I notice that there is definitely continuation between my day awareness and my dream awareness. If I am agitated during the day, my dreams can become agitated too. If I am peaceful during the day, my dreams tend to be peaceful. I notice that the mood has a continuation. To me that's a beneficial knowledge.

 

I don't consider myself to be chained to my past. No way. All of my being is ready to change at any moment. But if I don't actively intend to change, what happens? Inertia. Inertia is intentional and meaningful too. So there is no bondage and neither myself nor Buddha believed in permanent accumulations of any kind. Buddha believed that karma was flexible and fluid and you could alter it significantly in one life. Karma is intent and the only limit to altering intent is one's beliefs. So I think for people with enlightened and examined beliefs, there is a possibility of fast change. For people with dogmatic and inflexible beliefs which result from lack of examination, there is a lesser possibility of change. But all in all the possibility for change is huge.

 

I would add that, the rigid view of karma is more mental and leaves out the physical and feeling. I can feel in my self where one is coming from. Whether it is body, emotion or mental. Most karmic talk is very mental. The reason for this is that most are not fully in their bodies.

 

When you mention mood are you referring to feeling?

[Vajrahridaya]

I still consider that statement valid and probably a Freudian slip. Also if karma is so empty, then why discuss it ad infinitum? By discussing it you make it more concrete.

 

Actually, you didn't even re-read my final post. You're lazy. I actually was meaning to keep that on there. I kept dropped, then I later explained more clearly what I meant. Because karma cannot be dropped, it has to be seen through, dissolved. If you think you can drop karma, that's just repression.

 

I'm not making anything concrete ralis... you do.

[Vajrahridaya]

I was just trying to make a point, that people should just study Dzogchen

 

Don't worry about any other buddhist teaching.

 

Dzogchen is the same enlightenment as Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

All talk about karma etc., seriously makes me want to vomit out of sheer boredom.

 

Speak for yourself then.

 

Most people study Dzogchen and get the wrong idea about... ralis is one particular example.

[ralis]

 

Don't worry about any other buddhist teaching.

 

Dzogchen is the same enlightenment as Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

 

[RongzomFan]

Most people study Dzogchen and get the wrong idea about... ralis is one particular example.

 

 

As long as ralis has nominally taken refuge in the Triple Gems, I think he is perfectly fine.

 

I take refuge in the Triple Gems, but I will say that buddhism is fucking boring except for Dzogchen

Edited December 12, 2010 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

I would add that, the rigid view of karma is more mental and leaves out the physical and feeling. I can feel in my self where one is coming from. Whether it is body, emotion or mental. Most karmic talk is very mental. The reason for this is that most are not fully in their bodies.

 

When you mention mood are you referring to feeling?

 

I think your subjective view of things clouds your intuition as well as your interpretation of statements.

 

I in fact know... because I can feel it in my body when I read your posts.

 

p.s. mostly they emanate a sense of bitterness and disappointment.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

As long as ralis has nominally taken refuge in the Triple Gems, I think he is perfectly fine.

 

I take refuge in the Triple Gems, but I will say that buddhism is fucking boring except for Dzogchen

 

Yes, Buddhism can be very boring for the ego, especially Hinayana. Vajrayana and Dzogchen have a tendency to appeal to the exciting emotional side of people. They tend to spark more vigor. It's there nature, they are less external and less conceptual and more experiential forms of Buddhism. I do understand where you're coming from. There has to be a deep sense of inspiration to even read and get through the Pali Canon.

 

Ralis does not even nominally take refuge in the triple gem. He missed that part about Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoches teachings and practice, how each and every practice starts with taking refuge in the triple gem, and most of the things he says reflects his deep misunderstanding of Dzogchen and it's intention, as well as even what the experience of Rigpa means. He reads Dzogchen as "intrinsic awareness" or "primordial awareness" and has this idea about what that means which is really pretty far from what it's intention is within the context of Dzogchen... he has monist ideas about the experience and concept, revolving around attachment to inherent existence. He doesn't even realize it.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

 

 

Most people study Dzogchen and get the wrong idea about... ralis is one particular example.

 

Actually, I have the right idea about Dzogchen! You have the wrong idea about me! I write in a very careful and calculated manner that reveals very little as to who I am or what my spiritual pursuits are about.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, I have the right idea about Dzogchen! You have the wrong idea about me! I write in a very careful and calculated manner that reveals very little as to who I am or what my spiritual pursuits are about.

 

It's fine if you make excuses to yourself, as you are responsible for them in the end.

[ralis]

Yes, Buddhism can be very boring for the ego, especially Hinayana. Vajrayana and Dzogchen have a tendency to appeal to the exiting emotional side of people. They tend to spark more vigor. It's there nature, they are less external and less conceptual and more experiential forms of Buddhism. I do understand where you're coming from. There has to be a deep sense of inspiration to even read and get through the Pali Canon.

 

Ralis does not even nominally take refuge in the triple gem. He missed that part about Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoches teachings and practice, how each and every practice starts with taking refuge in the triple gem, and most of the things he says reflects his deep misunderstanding of Dzogchen and it's intention, as well as even what the experience of Rigpa means. He reads Dzogchen as "intrinsic awareness" or "primordial awareness" and has this idea about what that means which is really pretty far from what it's intention is within the context of Dzogchen... he has monist ideas about the experience and concept, revolving around attachment to inherent existence. He doesn't even realize it.

 

 

:lol:

 

It is truly amazing as to how you know me better than I know myself. I hope you are proud of yourself.

Edited December 12, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

:lol:

 

Well, at least you got a laugh... at least I sparked a moment of happiness in your life and not just contention.

[Vajrahridaya]

You say that you are calculating in your responses, and they reveal very little about you and your spiritual pursuits. So, then either they are straight up lies, and they do not reflect your views, or you are lying to yourself about your posts and don't realize how much you actually have revealed about yourself?

 

If they are lies, than you are a calculating fraud, and dishonest with us here at TTB. If they are not, then you are merely clever in your self deception about your self exposure.

[ralis]

You say that you are calculating in your responses, and they reveal very little about you and your spiritual pursuits. So, then either they are straight up lies, and they do not reflect your views, or you are lying to yourself about your posts and don't realize how much you actually have revealed about yourself?

 

If they are lies, than you are a calculating fraud, and dishonest with us here at TTB. If they are not, then you are merely clever in your self deception about your self exposure.

 

This is a world wide public forum that anyone can read. That should be obvious to you by now.

 

In terms of Dzogchen, I have said very little and may not use the correct terminology that meets your approval. That does not mean I didn't understand it. Besides, what is your agenda around this? Why the obsession? You act like the Dzogchen thought police.

Edited December 12, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

This is a world wide public forum that anyone can read. That should be obvious to you by now.

 

In terms of Dzogchen, I have said very little and may not use the correct terminology that meets your approval. That does not mean I didn't understand it.

 

Okey dokie!

[goldisheavy]

I would add that, the rigid view of karma is more mental and leaves out the physical and feeling. I can feel in my self where one is coming from. Whether it is body, emotion or mental. Most karmic talk is very mental. The reason for this is that most are not fully in their bodies.

 

When you mention mood are you referring to feeling?

 

When I sit in my chair, I feel pressure on my behind and my feet. That's feeling. To me all is a type of feeling, including what you refer to as "physical."

 

As for the moods, it's hard to say. You can say they are feelings, but it's also equally correct to say that moods are abstract summaries of experience. When you listen to a song, you hear individual notes. However, it's possible to discern a general mood of the song. For example, some songs are nervous and jumpy. Others are leisurely. Some songs change in mood, some remain relatively constant. People who add music to movies and games are very sensitive to this and use this to highlight various moods in the movies or games. But what is a mood? Is it really its own feeling? I am not sure. I can say "I feel the mood" but then, it's not some feeling that's on par with all the other feelings I feel. It's a higher-order feeling, it's more general, and it can be said to be a general description or a summary of all of its constituent feelings.

 

What is the feeling of a peaceful mood? If you say "I feel peaceful" what does it mean? Actually if you think about it, it doesn't mean anything specific. And yet we know what we mean, right? Peaceful can be someone sitting in a chair, or someone working a lathe, or someone who is running a marathon. It can be a deaf person and it can also be a quadriplegic who can't feel anything below the neck. That's what it means for something to be abstract. We know what it is, but we can't pin it down to anything concrete, nor to a combination of concrete perceptions.

 

Because abstractions come in levels, smaller moods can be combined into a larger more overarching mood, and none of this is fixed. Moods are subject to change, if you wish.

Edited December 12, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited December 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Because abstractions come in levels, smaller moods can be combined into a larger more overarching mood, and none of this is fixed. Moods are subject to change, if you wish.

 

It's all malleable. You can experience any mood and still experience self liberated bliss even while you are experiencing any mood. Because it's all empty of inherent existence, all moods are free from the power to truly bind.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Why the obsession? You act like the Dzogchen thought police.

 

I could in all justification ask you the very same thing, with even more justification, as I never even post to you without you first posting to me. As you always post to me and try to call me out... I merely respond to your contention with my own intention for clarification of the view and the point.

 

Ralis, you have revealed plenty to me about yourself and your state of being through all these posts to me... and what I've read in other threads that I never responded to.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

When I sit in my chair, I feel pressure on my behind and my feet. That's feeling. To me all is a type of feeling, including what you refer to as "physical."

 

Ralis: I would add that, the rigid view of karma is more mental and leaves out the physical and feeling. I can feel in my self where one is coming from. Whether it is body, emotion or mental. Most karmic talk is very mental. The reason for this is that most are not fully in their bodies.

 

Theories of karma deal with the mental, physical and emotional, they also deal with intention. They deal with all aspects of action, as that is what karma means.

 

When you experience it's wisdom directly, you break down and sob out lifetimes of karmic blockage, which then turns to blissful tears, then clarity in action.

 

Ralis, I think by your revelation, that you are too caught up in your lower 3 chakras, and are very physical, maybe even overly grounded. When you shared your experiences with Vipassana, I think this reflects this overly physical aspect of your experience. You are very much locked in body consciousness. You don't really reveal much of the heart chakra or ajna chakra experiences. Much less crown chakra experiences. I think when you experience someone as being, "not in their body"... they are just not in the body on your level. Your level of body seems very dense to me. This I can feel, not so much in my body at first moment, but in my auric field, my mental or emotional level of energy, as well as in my ajna... then it is experienced in my body, the slowest and most dense level of consciousness, in the linear time sense of dimensional experience at least.

 

I think based upon everything that you have shared, which has revealed plenty about where you are at, that you do not understand Dzogchen and that you should get some more transmissions and read some more books on the subject.

 

This is my personal opinion, and you can take it or leave it.

[goldisheavy]

It's all malleable. You can experience any mood and still experience self liberated bliss even while you are experiencing any mood. Because it's all empty of inherent existence, all moods are free from the power to truly bind.

 

I'm explaining the relevance of moods to ornaments. I'm not talking about liberation. People are interested in both. People want to be free and they want their lives to be beautiful.