The answer lies in the India/Nepal/Tibet Himalaya Regions afterall.. and definitely NOT in china/taiwan..

[Vajrahridaya]

Conquering aversion eh.. who'd have thought anyone would consider that a spiritual excercise?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!

 

LOL! Right?? I mean come on!! I only take my spirituality on gold plates eaten silver forks.

[Vajrahridaya]

What I find horrendous is moral systems based on purity/unpurity.

 

Yes, it's for overcoming our identity with physically encased dichotomies. So that we become more objective about our experience as a human person pervaded by these polarities.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

It is not symbolic and on Tibetan Lama came to Santa Fe and performed this ritual. Although the ingredients were watered down. I did not participate.

 

You have missed the entire point of my argument and was meant to challenge the Buddhist point of view as to their insistence on an internal world view only.

 

Internal world view?? HAHA!! This is all in reference to the internal practice. The external practices are all within the Tripitaka or Pali Cannon. It's generally assumed that one has a good anchoring and grounding in practical wisdom, meditative stability, as well as an experiential understanding of interconnectivity of all being before these internal, alchemical practices are performed. All this comes from experiential knowledge of the Tripitaka.

 

Basically Ralis, you don't understand because you lack the capacity at this time, you cleverly spin justifications for your dichotomous critical thinking.

 

Even though of course there has to be discernment, but Tantra is all about the inner practice and inner alchemy. If you aren't ready, you aren't ready.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

(slapping hand on lap) OH right!! You are hereby absolved of not stating this right off at the beginning but instead chose to go about it in the roundabout way by taking a poke at the tradition first... jeez, sometimes the rationales behind your justifications almost smack of an astuteness bordering on the scale of a genius!

 

He's very good at intellectual self foolery.

[ralis]

Yes, it's for overcoming our identity with physically encased dichotomies. So that we become more objective about our experience as a human person pervaded by these polarities.

 

This is the problem I have with your Buddhist narrative. "Physically encased dichotomies"? What is that supposed to mean? Why not explain what you mean? Give real world examples.

[ralis]

 

Basically Ralis, you don't understand because you lack the capacity at this time, you cleverly spin justifications for your dichotomous critical thinking.

 

 

 

 

Lack capacity? That is a personal insult. You have no idea who I am or what my realized experiences are!

[ralis]

He's very good at intellectual self foolery.

 

And you are not?

[Vajrahridaya]

Love you ralis, keep up the good work man. I hope you make a million playing poker. Peace.

[ralis]

Love you ralis, keep up the good work man. I hope you make a million playing poker. Peace.

 

Are you being facetious?

[goldisheavy]

Ralis,

 

I think your point is somewhat valid, because the Buddhist doctrine does tend to lean toward indifference, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a great thing either. So for example, Buddha apparently was happy as a clam with the caste system of India and did nothing (that I know of) to change it. Unlike Buddha though, many Hindu saints have criticized the caste system and retained their popularity and vitality just fine while doing so.

 

At the same time, Buddhism itself is not all the same. In particular, if we read the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, we find that Vimalakirti greatly cautioned against attaining extreme peace or personal Nirvana and has strongly promoted all kinds of relative virtues instead of insisting that nothing matters. But the mind that's presented in Vimalakirti Nirdesa is complex. On one hand, such mind embraces the ultimate sameness of all phenomena, and on the other hand, without any contradiction, that same mind embraces some things as wholesome and worthwhile and others as less so. So it's like a mystical blend of carrying and indifference.

 

And I think the point is valid. Too much indifference leads to a dull life, but too much carrying leads to explosive and volatile passions getting out of hand. The best path is somewhere in the middle. Is Buddhist dogma good for attaining this middle? I don't think so. I think all dogma is bad.

 

Let people extract what good there is in Buddhism and move on. That's what I say. Of course I have the same attitude toward all dogmas. Just take what's valuable and trash the rest. And when making decisions, always rely on reason above all else.

Edited May 31, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Ralis,

 

I think your point is somewhat valid, because the Buddhist doctrine does tend to lean toward indifference, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a great thing either. So for example, Buddha apparently was happy as a clam with the caste system of India and did nothing (that I know of) to change it. Unlike Buddha though, many Hindu saints have criticized the caste system and retained their popularity and vitality just fine while doing so.

 

Not so, the Buddha was indifferent towards the caste system and taught everyone the dharma and let any caste put on the robes of the Bikku. He argued against the validity of the Vedas which are the cause for the justification of the caste system.

 

At the same time, Buddhism itself is not all the same. In particular, if we read the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, we find that Vimalakirti greatly cautioned against attaining extreme peace or personal Nirvana and has strongly promoted all kinds of relative virtues instead of insisting that nothing matters.

 

The problem comes when people think non-dual teachings in Buddhism mean all is one, it means all is connected, not one giant singular essence. This leads to all sorts of assumptions which are very hard to root out, no matter how many ways one puts it into words if a person is very attached to this view. The type of teachings that promote overcoming diversity are for inner practice and promoting the attitude of omnipresent compassion, yet ones outer attitude towards karmic truths must be refined.

 

"Though my view is as spacious as the sky, My actions and respect for cause and effect are as fine as grains of flour." - Padmasambhava

 

 

So, those that get what you are stating above and what ralis is stating, are not getting it, and that's it. It has nothing to do with the teaching, it has to do with the capacity of the individual playing as an obstacle to wisdom.

[Mandrake]

Well at least 3 people liked them. It sounds like you only had a very superficial understanding of what he was transmitting, but I am not really interested in wasting my time arguing about whether coke or pepsi tastes better. I didn't say he was a good cuktivator since that's pretty relative. I said he has a lot of cultivation, which I can sense. Can I prove it to you in a way that will satisfy your rational mind, no.

 

If there's better material out there please find it and share with us. I am not being sarcastic either.

 

Kind Regards!

 

Superficial or not, nothing was new for me, and if the hermit videos are to be taken seriously, they should be presented from the hermit's viewpoint as well. We don't know anything about him. They couldn't even communicate since the guy didn't know tibetan. And still, getting irritated by mantra chanting: at a late beginner's level this should not be a disturbance anymore.

 

In any case, these videos were for BoL. There are people who rave about retreats - Daniel Ingram is one - provided you know what you are there for, and provided your motivation is correct. I've met people that participated in anything from short term to LT retreats, changing their lives. But their vision and goal with the practice was realistic, determined, and non-escapistic. People on this board should know SFJane: She basically secluded herself and through intensive contemplative practices restructured and healed her internal, very messy world. She was a hermit, but not a tibetan one.

 

 

Mandrake

[goldisheavy]

Not so, the Buddha was indifferent towards the caste system and taught everyone the dharma and let any caste put on the robes of the Bikku. He argued against the validity of the Vedas which are the cause for the justification of the caste system.

 

Yes, the Buddha didn't even try to change the caste system. That's a shame.

 

So, those that get what you are stating above and what ralis is stating, are not getting it, and that's it. It has nothing to do with the teaching, it has to do with the capacity of the individual playing as an obstacle to wisdom.

 

What are you talking about? I am not saying the same thing as ralis. Try again.

 

Cutting down dogmas without creating news ones to replace them is not easy. In particular, creating a dogmatic ritual for the purpose of overcoming dogma is definitely barking up the wrong tree. Something like eating the 5 meats may have been a good and fresh teaching for a few people. Make it into a ritual that's prescribed to people over and over and all the potency is lost. Something that was fresh, spontaneous and deeply personally relevant to some specific people has become like a conveyor belt of dogma. It's no longer customized for the individual students. It's just like a dead machine now where people get processed (brainwashed). It's become a dogma unto itself now. So instead of healing people's prejudices it just introduces new ones.

 

This is why rituals are terrible as a general rule. Rituals dogmatize and mechanize that which isn't supposed to be dogmatic or mechanic.

Edited May 31, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, the Buddha didn't even try to change the caste system. That's a shame.

 

 

He did something far deeper, as he knew they would kill him immediately and thus we wouldn't have the Buddhadharma. He met everyone at the place they were at, and gave them teachings that bettered them, thus he even turned Brahmins away from the caste system through his teachings. It's for those that are ready for them, and others have to work out their karmas in other ways. I feel he knew quite well what had to be done, and what would just have been a futile waste of energy.

 

What are you talking about? I am not saying the same thing as ralis. Try again.

 

I'm talking about the part where you stated the mistakes people make in interpretation. Ralis is an example of someone holding a mistaken interpretation as his reality.

 

Something that was fresh, spontaneous and deeply personally relevant to some specific people has become like a conveyor belt of dogma. It's no longer customized for the individual students.

 

Life is a ritual, it takes inner discipline to be spontaneous without loosing your state.

 

All that other stuff you said is just intellectual mumbo jumbo arm chair excuses to me... You can have them.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

He did something far deeper, as he knew they would kill him immediately and thus we wouldn't have the Buddhadharma.

 

That's why I explained that many Hindu saints have opposed the caste system without being killed and without losing popularity. I said so specifically to prevent this line of thinking. Apparently it went right over your head.

 

He met everyone at the place they were at, and gave them teachings that bettered them, thus he even turned Brahmins away from the caste system through his teachings.

 

Really? Is there some citation you can provide for this?

 

It's for those that are ready for them, and others have to work out their karmas in other ways. I feel he knew quite well what had to be done, and what would just have been a futile waste of energy.

 

I'm talking about the part where you stated the mistakes people make in interpretation. Ralis is an example of someone holding a mistaken interpretation as his reality.

 

What mistakes are those?

 

Life is a ritual, it takes inner discipline to be spontaneous without loosing your state.

 

I disagree.

 

All that other stuff you said is just intellectual mumbo jumbo arm chair excuses to me... You can have them.

 

Nice.

[Vajrahridaya]

That's why I explained that many Hindu saints have opposed the caste system without being killed and without losing popularity. I said so specifically to prevent this line of thinking. Apparently it went right over your head.

 

Not.. like the Buddha, come on. There have been no Indian saints as influential as the Buddha, other than maybe Shankaracharya who came up at a different time, during the demise of Buddhism through both Hindu and Muslim efforts. Also, it was a different time. He knew what he was doing. Replacing my line of thinking with yours will not make me any wiser. It's easy to judge from an armchair, the life of someone else, without knowing directly the nuances that can never be recorded, especially since the Buddha existed before the advent of the writing of extensive and nuanced historical records.

 

 

Really? Is there some citation you can provide for this?

 

Read the Suttas. This is why he taught in many ways.

 

What mistakes are those?

 

Criticizing without knowing.

 

 

I disagree.

 

I know you do, that's why I don't follow your line of thinking. Instead I follow the teachings of Buddhas, and I am also inspired by Saints of other traditions who practiced regularly, these empowered and liberating rituals. I also know directly the power of lineage charged ritual to dissolve the clingy ego, as well as the challenge it makes for the clinging ego that wants it's spirituality mushy and easy. I also know well that the clinging to self doesn't want to cause too much friction with it's pre-conceptions or pre-conditions and likes it's spirituality to fit neatly in it's unchallenged intellectual box. Having read the Autobiographies of countless Saints from all different traditions, I also know that they know all this as well. These same challenges arose within me during my years of Tantric training, but I didn't give into them, I went deeper instead.

 

People with big heads are scared of Gurus and Sanghas. But, instead of feeling this fear, they keep it at arms length with self justifying intellectual excuses, just so they don't have to reveal to themselves how scared and full of B.S. they really are.

 

Gold has to be burnt in a fire ritual in order for us to know what's deeper than the dross. This forrest, it can't be thought through, one has to walk through it body and all.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Not.. like the Buddha, come on. There have been no Indian saints as influential as the Buddha, other than maybe Shankaracharya who came up at a different time, during the demise of Buddhism through both Hindu and Muslim efforts. Also, it was a different time. He knew what he was doing. Replacing my line of thinking with yours will not make me any wiser. It's easy to judge from an armchair, the life of someone else, without knowing directly the nuances that can never be recorded, especially since the Buddha existed before the advent of the writing of extensive and nuanced historical records.

 

OK, so when it comes to criticizing Buddha, our historical records are not sufficient, but when it comes to praising Buddha, our records are more than sufficient. Do I understand you correctly?

 

Read the Suttas. This is why he taught in many ways.

 

I do read the Suttas (not so much anymore, but I've read quite a few in the past and I am open to reading more). So far I haven't found a single Sutta describing Buddha turning someone away from the caste system in a way that clearly exposes the caste system as a bad and immoral system.

 

Criticizing without knowing.

 

First, ralis is very intelligent. Second, ralis has had plenty of personal experience within the Buddhist system. Just because he arrived at a different conclusion about it does not mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

In fact, are there any people who disagree with you about the value of Buddhism, whom you consider knowledgeable? If the answer is "no" then you need to look yourself in the mirror and face your bias.

 

I think ralis does know what he's talking about. You or I may not agree with his conclusions, but to say he simply doesn't know what he is criticizing is very dishonest. He certainly knows that which he criticizes in every way a person can reasonably know in terms of this convention. He's got plenty of intelligence, plenty of experience both mundane and spiritual, so what else does he need to know?

 

I know you do, that's why I don't follow your line of thinking. Instead I follow the teachings of Buddhas, and I am also inspired by Saints of other traditions who practiced regularly, these empowered and liberating rituals. I also know directly the power of lineage charged ritual to dissolve the clingy ego, as well as the challenge it makes for the clinging ego that wants it's spirituality mushy and easy. I also know well that the clinging to self doesn't want to cause too much friction with it's pre-conceptions or pre-conditions and likes it's spirituality to fit neatly in it's unchallenged intellectual box. Having read the Autobiographies of countless Saints from all different traditions, I also know that they know all this as well. These same challenges arose within me during my years of Tantric training, but I didn't give into them, I went deeper instead.

 

People with big heads are scared of Gurus and Sanghas. But, instead of feeling this fear, they keep it at arms length with self justifying intellectual excuses, just so they don't have to reveal to themselves how scared and full of B.S. they really are.

 

What's the size of your head? Perhaps you speak from experience?

 

Gold has to be burnt in a fire ritual in order for us to know what's deeper than the dross. This forrest, it can't be thought through, one has to walk through it body and all.

 

Sure, but rituals are the dross you're trying to leave behind. It's like cleaning shit with more shit. It just gets smellier. Convention is a ritual. Free life is life beyond convention. It's a life beyond ritual. You can't leave rituals behind by following rituals.

Edited May 31, 2011 by goldisheavy

[C T]

Conventions are not good or bad in their fundamental uses. It becomes bad or potentially fatal only when people fixate on them, leading to diminished or narrowed perspectives. Abiding by conventions, it is hoped that due diligence could be cultivated as a new habit that replaces the old ones of carelessness, laziness and disregard. Pilots, for example, are highly ritualistic, and for this reason, most people feel safe to put their lives in their hands, trusting that they will follow every convention deemed necessary to ensure that the flight gets from A to B without any glitches. Without due diligence, guided by ritual and conventionality, the risk of pilot error becomes greater, as exemplified in the air crash in Miami, Florida in December of '72.

 

Perhaps we could apply a similar attitude to spiritual conventions and rituals? There is a pop phrase which says that the right tools in the wrong hands are useless, and similarly, the trained hand, without tools, while appearing free, may have no direction in which to follow.

 

Just some thoughts.

[Aaron]

In regards to the meditation practices presented in the documentary in the OP, I would have to say that it seems genuine, but one should also remember that most modern illusionists use practices first used by Yogis to perform many of their stunts. These practices aren't spiritual entirely, but rather misdirections that allow one to do something without others knowing. Of course in the same way, in order to perform many of their illusions they still require a great deal of control over their body and metabolism.

 

David Blaine went without food for 45 days and survived on just 4.5 liters of water a day, a feat many would say is impossible. One might ask if these meditation practices were signs of higher spiritual practice or simply a matter of learning to control the body's metabolism. The fact the sect of Buddhism that Ram hails from is very secretive about their techniques, tends to lend to the idea that this may all be an elaborate hoax. Regardless I rarely look at "miracles" as a sign of someone's spiritual progress, but rather their behavior. Beating people that disturb your meditation seems quite in line with what an eighteen year old boy would do, so I think Ram is progressing as expected.

 

Aaron

Edited May 31, 2011 by Twinner

[Oolong Rabbit]

[C T]

[Mandrake]

 

I think it was me who invited SFJane to taobums originally . If you read Doloma's blog, you will see he went through a very similar experience and cured it with similar means. See below:

 

 

 

Thanks for taking time to reply Oolong, and for providing some perspective. And if you're guilty of inviting SFJane - many thanks!

 

 

Mandrake

[ralis]

OK, so when it comes to criticizing Buddha, our historical records are not sufficient, but when it comes to praising Buddha, our records are more than sufficient. Do I understand you correctly?

 

 

 

I do read the Suttas (not so much anymore, but I've read quite a few in the past and I am open to reading more). So far I haven't found a single Sutta describing Buddha turning someone away from the caste system in a way that clearly exposes the caste system as a bad and immoral system.

 

 

 

First, ralis is very intelligent. Second, ralis has had plenty of personal experience within the Buddhist system. Just because he arrived at a different conclusion about it does not mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

In fact, are there any people who disagree with you about the value of Buddhism, whom you consider knowledgeable? If the answer is "no" then you need to look yourself in the mirror and face your bias.

 

I think ralis does know what he's talking about. You or I may not agree with his conclusions, but to say he simply doesn't know what he is criticizing is very dishonest. He certainly knows that which he criticizes in every way a person can reasonably know in terms of this convention. He's got plenty of intelligence, plenty of experience both mundane and spiritual, so what else does he need to know?

 

 

 

What's the size of your head? Perhaps you speak from experience?

 

 

 

Sure, but rituals are the dross you're trying to leave behind. It's like cleaning shit with more shit. It just gets smellier. Convention is a ritual. Free life is life beyond convention. It's a life beyond ritual. You can't leave rituals behind by following rituals.

 

 

Didn't the Buddha speak against ritualized practice?

[ralis]

Not.. like the Buddha, come on. There have been no Indian saints as influential as the Buddha, other than maybe Shankaracharya who came up at a different time, during the demise of Buddhism through both Hindu and Muslim efforts. Also, it was a different time. He knew what he was doing. Replacing my line of thinking with yours will not make me any wiser. It's easy to judge from an armchair, the life of someone else, without knowing directly the nuances that can never be recorded, especially since the Buddha existed before the advent of the writing of extensive and nuanced historical records.

 

 

 

 

Read the Suttas. This is why he taught in many ways.

 

 

 

Criticizing without knowing.

 

 

 

 

I know you do, that's why I don't follow your line of thinking. Instead I follow the teachings of Buddhas, and I am also inspired by Saints of other traditions who practiced regularly, these empowered and liberating rituals. I also know directly the power of lineage charged ritual to dissolve the clingy ego, as well as the challenge it makes for the clinging ego that wants it's spirituality mushy and easy. I also know well that the clinging to self doesn't want to cause too much friction with it's pre-conceptions or pre-conditions and likes it's spirituality to fit neatly in it's unchallenged intellectual box. Having read the Autobiographies of countless Saints from all different traditions, I also know that they know all this as well. These same challenges arose within me during my years of Tantric training, but I didn't give into them, I went deeper instead.

 

People with big heads are scared of Gurus and Sanghas. But, instead of feeling this fear, they keep it at arms length with self justifying intellectual excuses, just so they don't have to reveal to themselves how scared and full of B.S. they really are.

 

Gold has to be burnt in a fire ritual in order for us to know what's deeper than the dross. This forrest, it can't be thought through, one has to walk through it body and all.

 

 

 

I believe you are stating a quandary that can never be reconciled. If as you claim that during the time of the Buddha there were no extensive historical records created as to what the Buddha taught, then making any definitive proclamation as to the veracity of the Buddha's teachings, is erroneous.

[Immortal4life]

Ok so something I hear a lot, especially on this thread is "Read the Sutras".

 

"The" Sutras? Got any links?