Is This The Truth About Kundalini?

[Ulises]

Well, it's Buddhism really. Just my wording.

 

 

 

Ignorance, suffering, that is all really. The Buddha said, "All I teach is the pacification of suffering."

 

 

Well, if you want bondage? Then definitely ignore me.

 

 

 

You don't have to get into the idea of other realms. That just naturally occurs as your meditation progresses.

 

It's really about understanding the causes of why you suffer while on Earth, right now, in the body. The teaching is also about understanding the swings of pleasure and pain. How you might not be suffering during a time of pleasure, but what about when this pleasure ends. His teaching should deepen a persons awareness of change. If for you that does not include the change of before life and after life on a personal level, including multiple dimensions of experiencing your self? That is fine, the practices are really just about grounding your self awareness. For me that also means grounding my awareness of the cosmos and my experiences of other realms of self experience which the Buddha addresses very well.

 

 

 

This thread is about Kundalini and it's experience. I have a different view of what Kundalini is than what is being shared here. But it's still about the same phenomena. If you don't like what I have to say, you don't have to read it. You are not the only one here, and there are people who do like what they read from me. It is a perspective that is a radical departure from the norm, so it might be challenging. But none the less, it's valid.

 

 

Is this life-affirming...?:

 

'In a talk the Dalai Lama gave at UCLA in June, 1997, he read the following text:

 

"Most attachment to women comes from

the belief that womens bodies are pure.

But in actuality there is no purity

in a womans body at all.

 

Her mouth is a vessel of impurity,

with putrid saliva and gunk between her teeth;

Her nose is a pot of snot, phlegm and mucous,

and her eyes contain eye-slime and tears.

 

Her torso is a container of excrement,

holding urine, the lungs, liver and such.

The confused do not see that a woman is such;

thus, they lust after her body.

 

Like unknowing persons, who have become attached

to an ornamented vessel filled with filth,

Unknowing and worldly beings

are attached to women.

 

The Dalai Lama was reading from the Precious Garland of Nagarjuna, who is sometimes revered as a "Second Buddha."

 

Life affirming....?

 

...and Aurobindo is not the only one...

Edited December 6, 2010 by Ulises

[adept]

Is this life-affirming...?:

 

'In a talk the Dalai Lama gave at UCLA in June, 1997, he read the following text:

 

"Most attachment to women comes from

the belief that womens bodies are pure.

But in actuality there is no purity

in a womans body at all.

 

Her mouth is a vessel of impurity,

with putrid saliva and gunk between her teeth;

Her nose is a pot of snot, phlegm and mucous,

and her eyes contain eye-slime and tears.

 

Her torso is a container of excrement,

holding urine, the lungs, liver and such.

The confused do not see that a woman is such;

thus, they lust after her body.

 

Like unknowing persons, who have become attached

to an ornamented vessel filled with filth,

Unknowing and worldly beings

are attached to women.

 

The Dalai Lama was reading from the Precious Garland of Nagarjuna, who is sometimes revered as a "Second Buddha."

 

Life affirming....?

 

Oh dear, this will upset the Buddhists.

I've read a lot of these anti-women teachings in Buddhism over the years. In particular, that a woman needs to take the form of a man in a future life in order to 'escape the cycle of birth and death'.

What a terribly bigoted, sexist teaching.

Compassion for all sentient beings ? Don't make me laugh.

[Vajrahridaya]

Is this life-affirming...?:

 

'In a talk the Dalai Lama gave at UCLA in June, 1997, he read the following text:

 

"Most attachment to women comes from

the belief that womens bodies are pure.

But in actuality there is no purity

in a womans body at all.

 

Her mouth is a vessel of impurity,

with putrid saliva and gunk between her teeth;

Her nose is a pot of snot, phlegm and mucous,

and her eyes contain eye-slime and tears.

 

Her torso is a container of excrement,

holding urine, the lungs, liver and such.

The confused do not see that a woman is such;

thus, they lust after her body.

 

Like unknowing persons, who have become attached

to an ornamented vessel filled with filth,

Unknowing and worldly beings

are attached to women.

 

The Dalai Lama was reading from the Precious Garland of Nagarjuna, who is sometimes revered as a "Second Buddha."

 

Life affirming....?

 

 

This is from the perspective of renunciation as he was a Monk, talking to other Monks. Nagarjuna say's the same thing about his own body and the talk by the Dalai Lama is much longer and more nuanced than what you just quoted. That is just a view meant to lead one to delve into the body's nature instead of being ignorant about it. As that is just one aspect of the body, food comes in, shit comes out... it dies, it's nothing but bone, what is really this "I"? It's a certain perspective. Nagarjuna also talks about how Buddhahood is in the body, liberation is in the body and how wonderful the body is as a vehicle for liberation.

 

It's really your view, taking this reading completely out of context.

 

I really don't care what these people are saying, they are coming from an ignorant perspective, taking this and that out of context, due to fear, and completely missing the point. The vast corpus of Buddhist teachings touch upon many different perspectives meant for different people at different junctions in their lives in order to help them dive deeper.

 

The Dalai Lama has a heart practice and it's Dzogchen.

 

"According to Tibetan Buddhism and Bön, Dzogchen is the natural, primordial state or natural condition of the mind, and a body of teachings and meditation practices aimed at realizing that condition. Dzogchen, or "Great Perfection", is a central teaching of the Nyingma school also practiced by adherents of other Tibetan Buddhist sects. According to Dzogchen literature, Dzogchen is the highest and most definitive path to enlightenment.[1]

 

From the perspective of Dzogchen, the ultimate nature of all sentient beings is said to be pure, all-encompassing, primordial awareness or naturally occurring timeless awareness. This "intrinsic awareness" has no form of its own and yet is capable of perceiving, experiencing, reflecting, or expressing all form. It does so without being affected by those forms in any ultimate, permanent way. This pristine awareness is what Dzogchenpas refer to as rigpa. The analogy given by Dzogchen masters is that one's nature is like a mirror which reflects with complete openness but is not affected by the reflections, or like a crystal ball that takes on the colour of the material on which it is placed without itself being changed. In the practice of Dzogchen one is not distracted by thoughts, i.e. one does not let thoughts lead onself. This allows thoughts to naturally self-liberate without avoidance."

 

"The word Dzogchen has been translated variously as Great Perfection, Great Completeness, Total Completeness, and Supercompleteness. These terms also convey the idea that our nature as intrinsic awareness has many qualities that make it perfect. These include indestructibility, incorruptible purity, non-discriminating openness, flawless clarity, profound simplicity, all-pervading presence and equality within all beings (i.e., the quality, quantity and functionality of this awareness is exactly the same in every being in the universe). It is said that the impressive personal qualities of the fully enlightened Buddha derived from the fact that he was fully aligned with this already-existing primordial nature. (Which is the positive direct awareness of the constant and always empty nature of all arisings) Descriptions of a Buddha as omniscient and omnipresent refer to their ultimate nature as this awareness. The Tibetan term Dzogchen is sometimes said to be a rendering of the Sanskrit term mahāsandhi,[6] and is also used to render the Sanskrit term ati yoga (primordial yoga).[7]"

Edited December 6, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh dear, this will upset the Buddhists.

I've read a lot of these anti-women teachings in Buddhism over the years. In particular, that a woman needs to take the form of a man in a future life in order to 'escape the cycle of birth and death'.

What a terribly bigoted, sexist teaching.

Compassion for all sentient beings ? Don't make me laugh.

 

That idea is not in line with the Buddhas teaching. There are lots of stupid people in the world, and plenty of them got a hold of the Buddhist teachings and skewered them, then taught these misunderstandings to other people.

 

In my tradition of Buddhism, there are tons of Women Buddhas and tons of teachings from women Buddhas. I practice a few of the practices given by these Women Buddhas. So, who are you to believe? Someone who's actually studied the teachings and put them into practice or people who haven't really gone deeply into the teachings and hasn't put them into practice? I don't believe these teachings are Buddhist at all. The Buddha wouldn't have made an order of Nuns if he didn't think that women could realize Buddhahood.

 

There is also a story in Tibet, that comes from North India when Padmasambhava, the Buddha who brought Buddhism to Tibet, was alive. He had a student who was a female, and in her meditation she went to a heaven realm, and in this realm there was a monk who meditated his way up there as well. He said to her, "Hey, you can't become a Buddha, you have to become a man first." She then through her yogic power, transformed into a man right before his eyes and said, "What's the difference? Is there really an ultimate difference between a man and a women?" She then turned back into her form as a women and said, "As long as you are aware, you can become a Buddha, as this does not depend upon your sex."

 

Sexism appears in every tradition due to general human ignorance, not that it's natural to be ignorant, but that most humans have been ignorant and are ignorant to this day.

 

I think you guys should look more at why you are clinging to these negative views more than you would open up to positive views? It's interesting how most humans hear negative rumors or read mis-teachings and mis-representations of originally positive things and people, then hold on tightly to this mis-contextualization and misunderstandings, as if they were the ultimate truth?

 

I'm here, sharing positive views, based upon far more investigation and study than you guys and instead I'm getting hit with negative propaganda coming from... what state of mind?

 

Think of where you are coming from within you in sharing this mis-information?

 

With that, you can have it, if you think it's true, but it's not Buddhism.

[RongzomFan]

Can we PLEASE limit this thread to Robert Bruce's take on kundalini?

 

Thats why I started it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Heh, Vaj, for once you're saying some things I agree with. Woo Hoo!

 

Well, I am a staunch supporter of true Taoist lineages that lead to Buddhahood. As I feel there are plenty out there.

 

I just come from a Vajrayana/Dzogchen/Buddhist lineage so talk with that language. I think Taoism and Buddhism are compatible. I don't think that all peoples ideas of Taoism are compatible, just like I don't think all peoples ideas of Buddhism are compatible with Buddhism, but are just their own mis-understandings.

 

However, at this here reality level, our friend Jetsun seems to be having some trouble with grounding his (or her) energy. And for that, I think there's a lot to be said for healthy exercise, good food (including "enough" protein), sleep, staying off the benders and self-educating about mental health. This also includes IMO looking into the history of the "discipline," it's professionals and results BTW, but I digress

 

I agree.

 

I reckon that once K has been given a (paradoxically) rational context and a playing field in which one can accept it, even make "friends" with it then fear can drop away and proper investigation can begin.

 

Which is a matter of awareness de-mystifying the phenomena.

 

BUT if you jump right into things with an offering of an explanation, however good and truthful and helpful it seems to you, but is somewhat distant from the person experiencing it, I wonder if you don't deny that person the fruits of their own insights. You know, the raft and all that?

 

Still, if it helps, it helps.

 

I agree, on all points stated. Which is why this board should not be a persons only source of any type of information. One should investigate from many angles and from many points or places of reference. These boards can be somewhat Chaotic, with all the different view points. People have to find what's true for them in the now and what will help them now, which will evolve.

[Vajrahridaya]

Can we PLEASE limit this thread to Robert Bruce's take on kundalini?

 

Thats why I started it.

 

Really? We have to stick with his perspective? Ok then...

[Vajrahridaya]

Any tricked-out and tripped-out harpings made about any form of spiritual vehicle being the ultimate is BS.

 

It's that simple. (in my experience)

 

Om

 

Then the Buddha was wrong to debate with Mahavira about the incomplete view of Jainism, and he was wrong when he denied the Vedic/Theist vehicle as leading to Buddhahood? Because that's what he did and he was either wrong or right. It's up to you to decide of course, for yourself. But if you think he's wrong, then Buddhism is lower than Vedanta, and if he is right, than Buddhism is a much clearer vehicle than Vedanta. In this debate, there is no middle ground, other than ignoring the facts. Hindu scholars in India have accepted that the Buddha teaches something different from Vedanta, on an ultimate level, and thus they reject the Buddhas teachings, just like Shankaracharya and Aurobindo did. How can you justify the universality of all vehicles when their conclusions on liberation and the ultimate nature of things is entirely different?

Edited December 6, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[suninmyeyes]

Oh ,no! boring Ive just read your limitation of the thread to Robert Bruces take on kundalini.

I was just going to add something completley else...

So gotta go than I suppose,

Later xx

[3bob]

Then the Buddha was wrong to debate with Mahavira about the incomplete view of Jainism, and he was wrong when he denied the Vedic/Theist vehicle as leading to Buddhahood? Because that's what he did and he was either wrong or right. It's up to you to decide of course, for yourself. But if you think he's wrong, then Buddhism is lower than Vedanta, and if he is right, than Buddhism is a much clearer vehicle than Vedanta. In this debate, there is no middle ground, other than ignoring the facts. Hindu scholars in India have accepted that the Buddha teaches something different from Vedanta, on an ultimate level, and thus they reject the Buddhas teachings, just like Shankaracharya and Aurobindo did. How can you justify the universality of all vehicles when their conclusions on liberation and the ultimate nature of things is entirely different?

 

pissing contests to justify this or that interpretation stops at some point along the way...

 

We can beat our brains out and vainly dispaly such for all to see, but that is not of wisdom or compassion.

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

pissing contests to justify this or that interpretation stops at some point along the way...

 

We can beat our brains out and vainly dispaly such for all to see, but that is not of wisdom or compassion.

 

Om

 

Sure bob... Your interpretation and your justification of it.

[Ulises]

 

DECLARATION OF UNIVERSAL HERESY

 

" No sacred cows survive the realization of the nonconceptual, and one's realization becomes independent from any belief or teaching.

He recognizes that who and what he is is ultimately beyond any category, including all the spiritual categories.

He realizes that Reality is not a description, and that any description, any teaching or belief system regardless how useful and accurate, falls short of Reality as it is.

He recognizes the uniqueness of his realization without having to compare it with others, and appreciates the differences between the various teachings without having to rate them.

His realization has gone beyond conceptual categories and, hence beyond comparisons and ratings.

He believes in nothing, and adheres to no teaching or religion as final and ultimate.

He has become a universal heretic, embracing all, yet free of all."

A. H. Almaas

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulises

[NeiChuan]

Oh ,no! boring Ive just read your limitation of the thread to Robert Bruces take on kundalini.

I was just going to add something completley else...

So gotta go than I suppose,

Later xx

 

Look what you did alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

 

DECLARATION OF UNIVERSAL HERESY

 

" No sacred cows survive the realization of the nonconceptual, and one's realization becomes independent from any belief or teaching.

He recognizes that who and what he is is ultimately beyond any category, including all the spiritual categories.

He realizes that Reality is not a description, and that any description, any teaching or belief system regardless how useful and accurate, falls short of Reality as it is.

He recognizes the uniqueness of his realization without having to compare it with others, and appreciates the differences between the various teachings without having to rate them.

His realization has gone beyond conceptual categories and, hence beyond comparisons and ratings.

He believes in nothing, and adheres to no teaching or religion as final and ultimate.

He has become a universal heretic, embracing all, yet free of all."

A. H. Almaas

 

How very Hindu. There's no ultimate reality according to Buddha insight, only ultimate insight into reality, so I guess we opt out of the interpretation above taken directly from the old Hindu metaphor of the Elephant and the blind men.

 

Teaching that somehow the non-conceptual transcends the conceptual and is higher, better, more ultimate, is dualistic and merely leads to high level formless samadhi, which may feel like liberation to many, but is not.

 

To read what I just said above may not really make sense until it's experienced directly. I've experienced directly the level of interpretation that you are pushing as the ultimate truth above. Then I was introduced to the Buddhas teaching, first as an experiment because I really wanted to know if what the Buddhists were saying was true, that he did teach a different view of reality. Because I was willing to let go of my assumptions and attachment to experiences interpreted as proof of this ultimate reality beyond concepts, I was open enough to have some glimpses of what the Buddha was talking about with his teachings on dependent origination.

 

The state of the non-conceptual or formless state of mind arises just as dependently as the conceptual and is equally empty of inherent existence and is not a transcendent ground of being but is rather just another part of Samsara that most people are not conscious of.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Look what you did alwayson

 

I would have been interested to read what "Suninmyeyes" had to say. Que sera sera.

[Ulises]

Ha, ha, ha,ha! Your commentaries reveal your dogmatism, Vajrahridaya...

A. H. Almaas studied Vajrayana AND Sufism until a new unfolding began to happen to him. And one of the caracteristics of his so-called "Diamond Approach" (you can find virtually aspects of all the mystic lineages in it) is precisely the opposite of your "diagnostic": the emphasis in the personal essence...

He is a living example of the overcoming of stinking sectarianism: Truth cannot be contained in any box

 

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulises

[Vajrahridaya]

Ha, ha, ha,ha! Your commentaries reveal your dogmatism, Vajrahridaya...

A. H. Almaas studied Vajrayana AND Sufism until a new unfolding began to happen to him. And one of the caracteristics of his so-called "Diamond Approach" (you can find virtually aspects of all the mystic lineages in it) is precisely the opposite of your "diagnostic": the emphasis in the personal essence...

He is a living example of the overcoming of stinking sectarianism: Truth cannot be contained in any box

 

 

Ulises,

 

Actually, your comments reveal your dogma. The all is one dogma, the all paths come from and lead to the same place dogma. The dogma of "the non-conceptual" is the ground of being transcending all.

 

I also used to think this transcended dogmas, but then I had a realization, a Eureka revealing how dogmatic and imperialistic I was being. As if it couldn't be true that there are in fact different levels of realization and different types of insights into the nature of things that lead to different interpretations of the nature of "enlightenment" and "liberation?"

 

According to Buddhism, there is no ultimate truth, just relative truth, and that's Buddhisms ultimate truth.

 

P.S. What I'm saying is that, there are different insights, different outcomes to different approaches. I really don't care what this person realized, it's not in line with the teaching of the Buddha. I'm not sectarian, I'm just pragmatic. There are differences, both relative and ultimate between different spiritual traditions that lead to different spiritual outcomes, though generally subtle, they are important differences.

 

What this person is talking about is the luminosity, discussed and experienced by all major spiritual traditions, but not emptiness, which is the kicker that etches Buddhism out of the Universalism and Imperialism of all paths lead to and come from an ultimate and transcending "one" of all.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Ulises,

 

Actually, your comments reveal your dogma. The all is one dogma, the all paths come from and lead to the same place dogma. The dogma of "the non-conceptual" is the ground of being transcending all.

 

I also used to think this transcended dogmas, but then I had a realization, a Eureka revealing how dogmatic and imperialistic I was being. As if it couldn't be true that there are in fact different levels of realization and different types of insights into the nature of things that lead to different interpretations of the nature of "enlightenment" and "liberation?"

 

According to Buddhism, there is no ultimate truth, just relative truth, and that's Buddhisms ultimate truth.

 

P.S. What I'm saying is that, there are different insights, different outcomes to different approaches. I really don't care what this person realized, it's not in line with the teaching of the Buddha. I'm not sectarian, I'm just pragmatic. There are differences, both relative and ultimate between different spiritual traditions that lead to different spiritual outcomes, though generally subtle, they are important differences.

 

What this person is talking about is the luminosity, discussed by all major spiritual traditions, but not emptiness, which is the kicker that etches Buddhism out of the Universalism and Imperialism of all paths lead to and come from an ultimate and transcending "one" of all.

 

 

Actually, your views are sectarian, authoritarian and dogmatic. How can you claim to be pragmatic, when Buddhist beliefs can't be proven as fact? Pragmatic arguments are framed in terms of facts, which are not in the domain of religious dogma, innuendo and myth.

Edited December 7, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, your views are sectarian, authoritarian and dogmatic. How can you claim to be pragmatic, when Buddhist beliefs can't be proven as fact? Pragmatic arguments are framed in terms of facts, which are not in the domain of religious dogma, innuendo and myth.

 

You believe based upon the authority of your experience and intelligence that you are right and that what the Buddha taught is just a bunch of made up beliefs and myth. You think that based upon the "fact" that you are right and the "fact" that I am wrong, your view is separate from mine and the Buddhas view as well as more in line with the "truth" as you see it. Because of this fact, you are part of a sect of people that agrees with you that disagrees with the sect of people that agree with me. Your view is limited based upon this criteria so your mind does not reference experience beyond this in order to see past your prejudice concerning me. So you have a mental and experiential dogma limiting your interpretation of the things I say.

 

So much in this room is said based upon peoples spiritual experience that transcends the senses which cannot be verified by modern science, which is why I'm here. You want everything to be framed in scientific fact? Which is constantly changing?

 

All this proves that you are quite dogmatic, sectarian and authoritarian, Ralis.

 

You are a victim of the 5 senses that is in general considered to be the basis for knowing the "truth", and this is a popular myth adhered to by the ignorant masses.

 

Take a deeper look at yourself.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

"Any tricked-out and tripped-out harpings made about any form of spiritual vehicle being the ultimate is BS."

 

I agree but first time round I read: "Any tricked-out and tripped-out form of spiritual vehicle" and it lead me to consider briefly that maybe yes, ANY spiritual vehicle needs to be somewhat tricked-out and tripped-out or you won't recognize it as one and it won't take you sufficiently off the beaten path for you to start going "wait a minute, you mean...?"

[manitou]

When I started to have the 3rd eye experiences revolving around the contemplation of dependent origination/emptiness with the insights revealing perception past the theistic dimension of experience... There was no reconciliation between the two. I started to truly understand what the Buddha taught, and how entirely different of a realization it is from the level of "oneness" that reabsorbs and expresses Samsara, recycling all of us sentient beings, from the lower realms to the higher realms.

 

 

Hi Veejay - Have you ever given any consideration to posting on a Buddhist website? You'd have a lot to say to them.

My 3rd eye experience is quite different than yours. I don't understand the 'dependent origination / emptiness with the insignts revealing perception past the theistic dimension of experience.' My third eye only enables me to triangulate and See the condition of souls as they pertain to the present circumstances they have created for themselves. Your third eye sounds like it's a lot further reaching. How in the world do you put it to use?

[C T]

Hi Veejay - Have you ever given any consideration to posting on a Buddhist website? You'd have a lot to say to them.

 

What is the matter with posting on this one? I would think that if one is truly a student of the Tao, there is nothing to reject. Naturally, this is only my small opinion, and could be way off in the observation.

 

If i were to have an aversion towards some things i read, or some situation, i would first want to ascertain why this aversion is present in the first instant, instead of attempting to 'shoo' away the less-than-real notion that the cause of the aversion is from a source outside of my own mindscape, which then creates the scene for the next less-than-real notion to arise. Isn't this how ignorance is perpetuated? Find the source, and cut it there... then the flow that Taoists love to ponder and mull over will be all the more flowy.

[ralis]

You believe based upon the authority of your experience and intelligence that you are right and that what the Buddha taught is just a bunch of made up beliefs and myth. You think that based upon the "fact" that you are right and the "fact" that I am wrong, your view is separate from mine and the Buddhas view as well as more in line with the "truth" as you see it. Because of this fact, you are part of a sect of people that agrees with you that disagrees with the sect of people that agree with me. Your view is limited based upon this criteria so your mind does not reference experience beyond this in order to see past your prejudice concerning me. So you have a mental and experiential dogma limiting your interpretation of the things I say.

 

So much in this room is said based upon peoples spiritual experience that transcends the senses which cannot be verified by modern science, which is why I'm here. You want everything to be framed in scientific fact? Which is constantly changing?

 

All this proves that you are quite dogmatic, sectarian and authoritarian, Ralis.

 

You are a victim of the 5 senses that is in general considered to be the basis for knowing the "truth", and this is a popular myth adhered to by the ignorant masses.

 

Take a deeper look at yourself.

 

 

What I have trouble with is your incorrect use of terms. Read what you wrote! Sectarian? Seriously, you should look up and attempt to understand what sectarian really means!

 

 

You have some need to resort to personal attacks. Why?

Edited December 7, 2010 by ralis

[Ulises]

I see...did you find the Truth, like the Buddhist monks of different sects, killing each other in battles for "different insights"...?

 

 

 

"It seems that in seventh and eigth century Kashmir, and even in later centuries, there reigned a great freedom of spirit and that the yogis and yoguinis, when it was a matter of realizing the ultimate, hardly worried about the etiquette of the masters or about their belonging to one group or another. The great Abhinavagupta himself had many masters, some of whom were not Shaivite."

Yoga Spandakarika.The Sacred Texts at the Origins of Tantra, by Daniel Odier.

(Preface)

 

In other words...

 

"So let us understand that reality transcends all of our notions about reality. Reality is neither Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Advaita Vedanta, nor Buddhist. It is neither dualistic nor nondualistic, neither spiritual nor nonspiritual. We should come to know that there is more reality and sacredness in a blade of grass than in all of our thoughts and ideas about reality."

Adyashanti

 

 

 

Perhaps it's time to realise in each one of us that , as Walt Whitman wrote

 

"Above all things the flights and sublime ecstasies of the soul cannot submit to the statements of any church or any creed."

 

In 25 years of studying the mystical traditions, I have found very, very few practitioners (less than three) that weren't promoting overtly or subtly their tradition.

Now I feel closer to what Darin de Stefano says:

"Don’t mistake an interest in spirituality or enlightenment with the pursuit of them. Every kind of predatory mind-cult on Earth has the former, and every one of them is desperate for new human agents to spread their diseases. The latter is comparatively rare, and tends to either remain silent, or work to expose the imitators. Sometimes both."

http://organelle.tumblr.com/post/1038552846/dont-mistake-an-interest-in-spirituality-or

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulises

[3bob]