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

[goldisheavy]

I also feel that your anti-dogma is a dogma.

 

Why do you say that? I often praise Buddha. I often cite Buddhist materials in a positive light, as examples of something worth emulating or worth studying. Are you still sure that my anti-dogma stance is dogmatic?

 

These rituals that are taught by the Buddha (he definitely taught rituals such as meditation, and regulated eating, etc.)

 

Buddha Gautama did not teach the 5 meats ritual. He taught meditation which is not ritualistic, as I understand it. Breathing is not a ritual, nor is eating. Perhaps eating precisely at the same time is a ritual, yes. Wearing robes is a ritualistic practice. So I think you're still right and Buddha did teach some rituals. But what is the essence of what he taught? Is the ritual the essence? I think not. Can someone benefit from Buddha dharma without wearing robes? I think so. Are robes necessary at all? I don't think so.

 

You can argue that the Sangha as a community of like-minded individuals who together work to preserve the written Dharma is necessary, and here I would agree. It's nice to have some custodians. The Sangha doesn't have to be formal or robed.

 

But even without all that people would still have access to wisdom. Wisdom is innate. Wisdom is not something that comes to us from the past through the lineage.

 

A lot of the old teachings come mixed with all kinds of baggage. If Buddha Gautama teachings were perfect and perfectly exhaustive, then we wouldn't need further turnings of the wheel, would we?

 

Buddha Dharma is only medicinal if you use it as a tool without worshiping it. The minute you start to prostrate yourself before your aspirin bottle, is the minute the aspirin changes from medicine into poison. Even the best teaching can be turned into poison. How? Just follow it literally or very rigidly, without the slightest deviation.

 

and subsequent Buddhas are something that takes up a persons time in life, and replace other less helpful rituals in order to bring people closer to self transcendence or rather insight into the self. There is a ladder to climb when it comes to spiritual evolution, and a very important part of that ladder is what you call the dogmas,

 

OK, so if you think my anti-dogmatic stance is another kind of dogma, it must be an important part of the ladder, right?

 

but what I call positive ritual that lead to deepened and elongated access to those inner spaces of genius that transcend the intellect, yet are stabilized and integrated into this 3 dimensional platform, through the intellect.

 

Dogma and ritual are related but different. Dogma is a teaching that's not supposed to be questioned. Ritual is an action or a series of actions that you're not supposed to deviate from. Dogma is the mind that's numb, and ritual is the body that's numb. Dogma is a bit more subtle than the ritual.

 

Even paths that talk about instant enlightenment like Dzogchen and Zen, utilize the gradual path of supporting positive ritual even while holding the view of liberation is here and now. so it's not one way or another, it's a holistic sphere, which makes a spiritual path with positive ritual, very important and not to be shunned by this new age, everything is dogma ideal.

 

New Age is right about a lot of things and Old Age is wrong about a lot of things. When Milarepa was still alive, he was a plucky New Ager. Buddha Gautama was being a New Ager when he took an established concept of Atman and came up with Anatman.

 

Don't be so quick to bash the New Age movement without knowing it. After all, you think ralis bashes Buddhism from time to time because he doesn't know it, right? Could it be that you bash New Age because you don't know it? Would you accept this criticism?

 

Also, I am pretty sure that ralis speaks positively about Buddhism and about Buddha dharma too. So it's not like ralis is strictly negative, right?

 

On the other hand, would you say you are strictly positive about Buddha Dharma? Would you say that you are unable to look at the Buddha Dharma with a critical eye?

 

The type of ritual the Buddha was against, were the rituals in the Vedas that required animal sacrifice for the gods, and things of that nature.

 

Everything is pure though. The same guys that suggest eating the 5 meats would be the same guys who'd have no problem killing anyone or anything at some point in time and sacrificing the kill to anyone or anything. It's the hard truth. You can't have freedom and civility at the same time. Civility is a voluntary restriction to a free person. I am free because I choose to be civil voluntarily. Are you civil voluntarily or out of fear?

Edited June 1, 2011 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

Why do you say that? I often praise Buddha. I often cite Buddhist materials in a positive light, as examples of something worth emulating or worth studying. Are you still sure that my anti-dogma stance is dogmatic?

 

 

 

Buddha Gautama did not teach the 5 meats ritual. He taught meditation which is not ritualistic, as I understand it. Breathing is not a ritual, nor is eating. Perhaps eating precisely at the same time is a ritual, yes. Wearing robes is a ritualistic practice. So I think you're still right and Buddha did teach some rituals. But what is the essence of what he taught? Is the ritual the essence? I think not. Can someone benefit from Buddha dharma without wearing robes? I think so. Are robes necessary at all? I don't think so.

 

You can argue that the Sangha as a community of like-minded individuals who together work to preserve the written Dharma is necessary, and here I would agree. It's nice to have some custodians. The Sangha doesn't have to be formal or robed.

 

But even without all that people would still have access to wisdom. Wisdom is innate. Wisdom is not something that comes to us from the past through the lineage.

 

A lot of the old teachings come mixed with all kinds of baggage. If Buddha Gautama teachings were perfect and perfectly exhaustive, then we wouldn't need further turnings of the wheel, would we?

 

Buddha Dharma is only medicinal if you use it as a tool without worshiping it. The minute you start to prostrate yourself before your aspirin bottle, is the minute the aspirin changes from medicine into poison. Even the best teaching can be turned into poison. How? Just follow it literally or very rigidly, without the slightest deviation.

 

 

 

OK, so if you think my anti-dogmatic stance is another kind of dogma, it must be an important part of the ladder, right?

 

 

 

Dogma and ritual are related but different. Dogma is a teaching that's not supposed to be questioned. Ritual is an action or a series of actions that you're not supposed to deviate from. Dogma is the mind that's numb, and ritual is the body that's numb. Dogma is a bit more subtle than the ritual.

 

 

 

New Age is right about a lot of things and Old Age is wrong about a lot of things. When Milarepa was still alive, he was a plucky New Ager. Buddha Gautama was being a New Ager when he took an established concept of Atman and came up with Anatman.

 

Don't be so quick to bash the New Age movement without knowing it. After all, you think ralis bashes Buddhism from time to time because he doesn't know it, right? Could it be that you bash New Age because you don't know it? Would you accept this criticism?

 

Also, I am pretty sure that ralis speaks positively about Buddhism and about Buddha dharma too. So it's not like ralis is strictly negative, right?

 

On the other hand, would you say you are strictly positive about Buddha Dharma? Would you say that you are unable to look at the Buddha Dharma with a critical eye?

 

 

 

Everything is pure though. The same guys that suggest eating the 5 meats would be the same guys who'd have no problem killing anyone or anything at some point in time and sacrifice the kill to anyone or anything. It's the hard truth. You can't have freedom and civility at the same time. Civility is a voluntary restriction. I am free because I choose to be civil voluntarily. Are you civil voluntarily or out of fear?

 

 

Very well said!

[thelerner]

 

Very cool video. I wonder if they'd be even more successful if they kept to the shallows? Perhaps part of their initial success isn't that they're touching the bottom, but that in shallower water there is a compression effect, where deeper water 'just gives'??

 

Give those guys some well designed mini fins and they'd probably make it quite a distance.

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

I'm not sure where to go with this. I think the problem still lies in following a belief without question. Perhaps that's what I like about Zen, if you approach a Roshi with the idea that you already know what Zen is, they will normally send you away. They don't want someone who "knows", they want someone who questions, who doesn't know.

 

Now on the flip side, what I find most discouraging about Zen Buddhists is their rigidity in learning about Zen. Unless one learns exactly as the one before them, giving the exact answers given by those who have come before, then they cannot receive their transmission.

 

I think the problem that most religions have and Buddhism has as well, is that we tend to view those who have become monks to be without reproach. The Buddhist monk is no different from the Christian Priest, or even the devout Imam, they are all capable of sin. When we cease to view these people as fallible, then who will watch those who watch over us? Buddha? God? Is that good enough?

 

My point is that we are all human and we will never escape being human. Whether we realize samadhi or not, the body still exists and so long as it exists so does our propensity for fallibility.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, call me a bit odd, but I think if one is really looking for the answer within Buddhism then perhaps they need to look towards Japan.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

Why do you say that? I often praise Buddha. I often cite Buddhist materials in a positive light, as examples of something worth emulating or worth studying. Are you still sure that my anti-dogma stance is dogmatic?

 

 

Sometimes, yes. You don't actually have transmission, you don't actually practice Buddhadharma, you just read it and you may practice it intellectually, but you have admitted to never having taken refuge, which the Buddha taught.

 

Buddha Gautama did not teach the 5 meats ritual.

 

Yes, but because Buddhas dharma works, there have been subsequent Buddhas, and thus there are other Buddha minded practices. If you only respect Gotama's teachings in the Pali. That's fine, do that. But, there are other capacities and higher yanas. The Buddha taught to beings with higher insight capacity the teachings in the Mahayana and the teachings in the Vajrayana come from other Buddhas in the universe as well.

 

He taught meditation which is not ritualistic, as I understand it. Breathing is not a ritual, nor is eating. Perhaps eating precisely at the same time is a ritual, yes. Wearing robes is a ritualistic practice. So I think you're still right and Buddha did teach some rituals. But what is the essence of what he taught? Is the ritual the essence? I think not. Can someone benefit from Buddha dharma without wearing robes? I think so. Are robes necessary at all? I don't think so.

 

I'll say this, until you actually attain constant meditation, it's good to do meditation as a ritual, the same time, everyday, elongating and deepening the ritual, if you can. This is what the masters advise. Since I've experienced directly the fruit of this practice, I agree.

 

You can argue that the Sangha as a community of like-minded individuals who together work to preserve the written Dharma is necessary, and here I would agree. It's nice to have some custodians. The Sangha doesn't have to be formal or robed.

 

It doesn't have to be, but at the same time, it doesn't have to not be.

 

But even without all that people would still have access to wisdom. Wisdom is innate. Wisdom is not something that comes to us from the past through the lineage.

 

It's highly difficult if it doesn't. The Buddha said that there have been solitary realizers, but they did realize what they realized through great difficulty as they didn't have any lineage road map. Why make things harder on yourself, because of ego? I think so.

 

A lot of the old teachings come mixed with all kinds of baggage. If Buddha Gautama teachings were perfect and perfectly exhaustive, then we wouldn't need further turnings of the wheel, would we?

 

They were perfect for the time, he also taught Mahayana while alive and to some through meditative experience after his physical passing. If you don't believe that, this is fine. I have no problem believing this due to direct experiences in meditation, not as ralis would say, "conditioned by assumption"... but through deep opening of my own potential as a human being. As the individuals evolved, as beings became Buddhas through his teaching, they expressed more highly evolved ways for these different capacities. It all depends on your capacity. Why wouldn't we need more turnings of the wheel? As a kid, I can only handle A.B.C's.... later on? On and on as the individual evolves.

 

Buddha Dharma is only medicinal if you use it as a tool without worshiping it. The minute you start to prostrate yourself before your aspirin bottle, is the minute the aspirin changes from medicine into poison. Even the best teaching can be turned into poison. How? Just follow it literally or very rigidly, without the slightest deviation.

 

Prostrating has nothing to do with being rigid, it's actually due to the result of having an experiential opening from within towards something far deeper than our attachment to individuality. In general we prostrate to our own understanding, as lack luster as it may be, as incomplete as it may be. We devote so much time to protecting our own lack of experience and lack of insight, considering it the high and mighty god of our everything, without even being conscious of it.

[Vajrahridaya]

OK, so if you think my anti-dogmatic stance is another kind of dogma, it must be an important part of the ladder, right?

 

Sure, your personal ladder. You have your own process.

 

Dogma and ritual are related but different. Dogma is a teaching that's not supposed to be questioned. Ritual is an action or a series of actions that you're not supposed to deviate from. Dogma is the mind that's numb, and ritual is the body that's numb. Dogma is a bit more subtle than the ritual.

 

Dogma just means something laid down as true without outright proof. Dogmas can be good for certain people, but as they evolve through a particular dogma, they learn how to open up through that discipline to wider scopes of thinking. Like a horse with blinders to keep it from seeing what's on the peripheral of the track it needs to run. Dogma doesn't have to be religious either, like the anti-religious dogma. If you are truly open, you can see the light and dark side of any phenomena, but what you focus on is more a revelation of your state of mind. Ritual should not be dogmatic, but helpful, and ritual should change according to your capacity, and you will know when this is so, at times you will be guided by a teacher who knows quite objectively what should be done. But, first you need humility in order to learn anything from a teacher.

 

 

New Age is right about a lot of things and Old Age is wrong about a lot of things. When Milarepa was still alive, he was a plucky New Ager. Buddha Gautama was being a New Ager when he took an established concept of Atman and came up with Anatman.

 

That's not what I mean by New Agers. The term has a specific meaning in the dictionary. It means the mixing of views from all sorts of branches of philosophy. This in my opinion can cloud a persons understanding into mush. But it all depends upon personal capacity. There does seem to be a "new age" anti Guru movement that say's we can read about this stuff online and never take refuge into a true path of spiritual alchemy.

 

Don't be so quick to bash the New Age movement without knowing it. After all, you think ralis bashes Buddhism from time to time because he doesn't know it, right? Could it be that you bash New Age because you don't know it? Would you accept this criticism?

 

Also, I am pretty sure that ralis speaks positively about Buddhism and about Buddha dharma too. So it's not like ralis is strictly negative, right?

 

On the other hand, would you say you are strictly positive about Buddha Dharma? Would you say that you are unable to look at the Buddha Dharma with a critical eye?

 

 

I do know plenty about the New Age movement and it's mushiness, it's lack of eye for detail. I know plenty of people who follow it, and plenty are pretty nice, but quite spacey as well. Anyway, not all aspects of the New Age movement are bad. Of course having access to all sorts of information can be very good, depending on a persons individual capacity.

 

I feel that the Buddhadharma is good in the beginning, middle and end, but it's many of the individuals who claim to follow the dharma that deserve criticism. I am one of them and I criticize myself plenty, hopefully in a compassionate way though. I also am not a fan of every single commentary or commentator on various texts written by Buddhas.

 

Everything is pure though. The same guys that suggest eating the 5 meats would be the same guys who'd have no problem killing anyone or anything at some point in time and sacrificing the kill to anyone or anything. It's the hard truth.

 

Everything is only pure due to it's emptiness, but relativity is what is. The same guys suggesting the eating of the 5 meats are not having no problem killing anyone or anything. I don't see the correlation. You don't have any Tantric training so I don't expect you to understand what that ritual is about. These meats cannot be sacrificed specifically for the ritual which is about integrating the state of mind of a Buddha with all things deemed unsavory thereby transcending ones bondage of dualism, on an inner level. Killing is justified if it has to do with a greater good, but only a Buddha knows what the greater good is due to seeing objectively. Of course if you don't believe in the ability to see objectively, then you wouldn't believe in the possibility to become a Buddha.

 

 

You can't have freedom and civility at the same time. Civility is a voluntary restriction to a free person. I am free because I choose to be civil voluntarily. Are you civil voluntarily or out of fear?

 

The Dharma is about inner freedom, not the freedom to do whatever whim comes across your mind out of a sense of lack or discontent. The Dharma is about freedom from a sense of inner lack. I am civil out of respect for my fellow beings, out of a genuine feeling of compassion. My life is proof enough of this. Fear? Fear of what? Condemnation? I've never been one to do things out of a desire for peer support, unless it was support that correlated with my own intuition. I've never been one to have faith in something without direct experience. I've always questioned authority. I've always been somewhat of a rebel, but then again, I've also at times been a rebel against my own tendency for rebellion.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

edit- Also, call me a bit odd, but I think if one is really looking for the answer within Buddhism then perhaps they need to look towards Japan.

 

Japan has a bit of Shingon, which is Vajrayana in Japanese, but it's also polluted with lots of Nuclear crap right now. I wouldn't suggest anyone go to Japan right now without a radiation suit.

 

Japan does not have Dzogchen though. I find the result of the Rainbow Body to be quite revelatory of the power of Dzogchen and Mahamudra which were preserved in Tibet, a bit in Bhutan, Ladakh and such areas.

 

This is the Rainbow Body... Link describing a bit of this phenomena

 

Even within the last 10 years there have been a few known people who have attained this level of realization in Tibet. Of course, I don't blame anyone for not believing in this possibility. But, based upon my own experiences in meditation both on and off the cushion, I do outright believe in this possibility for an individual.

[goldisheavy]

Hello folks,

 

I'm not sure where to go with this. I think the problem still lies in following a belief without question. Perhaps that's what I like about Zen, if you approach a Roshi with the idea that you already know what Zen is, they will normally send you away. They don't want someone who "knows", they want someone who questions, who doesn't know.

 

Now on the flip side, what I find most discouraging about Zen Buddhists is their rigidity in learning about Zen. Unless one learns exactly as the one before them, giving the exact answers given by those who have come before, then they cannot receive their transmission.

 

I think the problem that most religions have and Buddhism has as well, is that we tend to view those who have become monks to be without reproach. The Buddhist monk is no different from the Christian Priest, or even the devout Imam, they are all capable of sin. When we cease to view these people as fallible, then who will watch those who watch over us? Buddha? God? Is that good enough?

 

My point is that we are all human and we will never escape being human. Whether we realize samadhi or not, the body still exists and so long as it exists so does our propensity for fallibility.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, call me a bit odd, but I think if one is really looking for the answer within Buddhism then perhaps they need to look towards Japan.

 

Exactly my point! This is what I keep harping about on and on. I'm glad you see it this way Aaron. Thank you!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

My point is that we are all human and we will never escape being human. Whether we realize samadhi or not, the body still exists and so long as it exists so does our propensity for fallibility.

 

Aaron

 

 

 

Yes, you will escape the conditions of being human, whether is be through death and re-birth into another stream of expression or through realization of the subtler nature of everything, including yourself through self transcendence, you will.

 

Even the Buddha, while appearing as a human said, "I have transcended the conditions of being human. I am neither a god or a human, I am awake" I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's the gist of it.

 

So, practice more deeply and realize more clearly.

[goldisheavy]

Sometimes, yes. You don't actually have transmission, you don't actually practice Buddhadharma, you just read it and you may practice it intellectually, but you have admitted to never having taken refuge, which the Buddha taught.

 

So, according to you, to practice Buddha Dharma I have to engage in this kind of formalism, right? If I merely pay heed to Buddha's wisdom, I am not actually practicing Buddha Dharma, right?

 

Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps taking refuge is not a formalism, but a change in the mindset. What does it mean to take refuge?

 

Yes, but because Buddhas dharma works, there have been subsequent Buddhas, and thus there are other Buddha minded practices. If you only respect Gotama's teachings in the Pali. That's fine, do that. But, there are other capacities and higher yanas. The Buddha taught to beings with higher insight capacity the teachings in the Mahayana and the teachings in the Vajrayana come from other Buddhas in the universe as well.

 

 

 

I'll say this, until you actually attain constant meditation, it's good to do meditation as a ritual, the same time, everyday, elongating and deepening the ritual, if you can. This is what the masters advise. Since I've experienced directly the fruit of this practice, I agree.

 

 

 

It doesn't have to be, but at the same time, it doesn't have to not be.

 

 

 

It's highly difficult if it doesn't. The Buddha said that there have been solitary realizers, but they did realize what they realized through great difficulty as they didn't have any lineage road map. Why make things harder on yourself, because of ego? I think so.

 

No, because yielding one's own power to someone else leads to a social catastrophe. No one deserves to have a band of ignorant dittoheads at one's disposal.

 

When Buddha refused to follow his two Hindu Gurus and went off on his own, people thought he was full of himself as well. In fact, when he returned to his former friends, they told him to take a hike at first.

 

People fear those who are independent because they are hard to control. Why do people have this fear? It's because of the ego. The ego feels safer when everyone follows the same master.

 

They were perfect for the time, he also taught Mahayana while alive and to some through meditative experience after his physical passing.

 

Those "some" include me as well.

 

If you don't believe that, this is fine.

 

Of course I do. I have a transmission just like that myself. Why wouldn't I believe it? I think the person who isn't going to believe it is not me, but you. You are the one who doesn't believe what you claim to believe. You'll see what I mean very soon when you reply.

 

I have no problem believing this due to direct experiences in meditation,

 

We'll see about that. I bet you do have a problem believing such things, you just can't admit you have a problem.

[Vajrahridaya]

So, according to you, to practice Buddha Dharma I have to engage in this kind of formalism, right? If I merely pay heed to Buddha's wisdom, I am not actually practicing Buddha Dharma, right?

 

Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps taking refuge is not a formalism, but a change in the mindset. What does it mean to take refuge?

 

 

To take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha? It has an ever deepening meaning according to the depth of your comprehension, just like reading the Suttas, Sutras, and what have you. Just like the practice of meditation, in a formal sense yes, deepens it's own meaning of your self reference through doing it, over and over again.

 

On a practical level though, the 3 jewel refuge means actually having a living teacher of the dharma, as Buddhism works, there are living Buddhas alive right now. Taking refuge in the teachings of the Buddhas, and also the group of Buddhist practitioners, on a living level, or to the degree I suppose you are capable of. If you are merely a brain hooked up to a computer, then I guess that gives one some limitations... LOL!

 

No, because yielding one's own power to someone else leads to a social catastrophe. No one deserves to have a band of ignorant dittoheads at one's disposal.

 

Oh, you don't get it, so conditioned by Western individualism and personal pride. Ah well. So much for humbling yourself to the teachings of the Buddha, he's at fault, not you... right? I guess you will continue to bow to your own understanding as figure head until you realize it doesn't take you anywhere special.

 

When Buddha refused to follow his two Hindu Gurus and went off on his own, people thought he was full of himself as well. In fact, when he returned to his former friends, they told him to take a hike at first.

 

Sure, but he did follow these teachers who taught him to a very high degree of meditation and understanding before he transcended them. He is known as a wheel turning Buddha. According to Mahayana, which I am a Mahayanist, he had already done his work in a previous life, had a Guru and set up the conditions to manifest the way he did for us in this life. He did say that he was here to rekindle an old teaching. The Hinayana leads to the Mahayana, it's all right there. He did his Tantric work in a higher loka, known as... oh I forgot, but in Hinduism it's called Indraloka. It's another plane of existence as real as this, one can travel there through meditation. But I guess without direct experience of this, one would have to have blind faith. I have no such blind faith in this realm. I don't believe anything without direct experience. So, I do have faith in this realms reality due to that.

 

All the different yanas run together and are connected, in progression.

 

People fear those who are independent because they are hard to control. Why do people have this fear? It's because of the ego. The ego feels safer when everyone follows the same master.

 

Only a true disciple can become a true master. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

To take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha? It has an ever deepening meaning according to the depth of your comprehension, just like reading the Suttas, Sutras, and what have you. Just like the practice of meditation, in a formal sense yes, deepens it's own meaning of your self reference through doing it, over and over again.

 

What's your current deepest understanding of the refuge then?

 

 

On a practical level though, the 3 jewel refuge means actually having a living teacher of the dharma, as Buddhism works, there are living Buddhas alive right now. Taking refuge in the teachings of the Buddhas, and also the group of Buddhist practitioners, on a living level, or the the degree I suppose you are capable of. If you are merely a brain hooked up to a computer, then I guess that gives one some limitations... LOL!

 

This sounds like a formalism.

 

Oh, you don't get it, so conditioned by Western individualism and personal pride. Ah well. So much for humbling yourself to the teachings of the Buddha, he's at fault, not you... right?

 

I have put many teachings on top of my head.

 

I guess you will continue to bow to your own understanding as figure head until you realize it doesn't take you anywhere special.

 

Special? I am already here. The special place is right here.

 

Sure, but he did follow these teachers who taught him to a very high degree of meditation and understanding before transcended them.

 

So you're not allowed to transcend right away, eh? You need to pay your dues first. Who made this rule?

 

Keep in mind, I have a direct transmission from a Buddha in a meditative experience. So if you want to ignore this fact, you either don't believe in meditative transmission, or you think I am lying (which I am not).

Edited June 1, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

What's your current deepest understanding of the refuge then?

 

 

Rigpa.

 

 

This sounds like a formalism.

 

There is nothing wrong with that, if you have rigpa. There is nothing wrong with that, unless you're dogmatic. If you are beyond that, then it wouldn't matter if you did it. There wouldn't be resistance.

 

I have put many teachings on top of my head.

 

Ok good, but pranaming to a living master takes an entirely different degree of humility, especially for us egotistical Westerners. It's actually more deeply empowering, if the Master is worthy, which they say in the Indian tradition that one should scrutinize ones teacher for like 7 years or something like that? I can't remember the exact number. Before one decides to take disciple-ship.

 

 

So you're not allowed to transcend right away, eh? You need to pay your dues first. Who made this rule?

 

Sure you can, but that "right away" happens only after paying dues. Isn't that interesting? If you are ready in this lifetime right off the bat, then you already paid your dues in a previous birth. It's said that the body can't hold the entirety of liberation until after puberty anyway, it has to do with maturation of the energy channels. Even Nityananda (Bade Baba) had a Master to teach him the scriptures and he was very humble to this Master, even though he was already a Master from a previous life.

 

Keep in mind, I have a direct transmission from a Buddha in a meditative experience. So if you want to ignore this fact, you either don't believe in meditative transmission, or you think I am lying (which I am not).

 

I don't doubt the experience at all, that is fine. That's awesome in fact! I've as well had many transmissions during the course of my progression through meditative layers. But, that doesn't make one a Buddha.

 

Even Demonic people have psychic experiences and can astral project, etc.

 

The Buddha even warned about seeing so called Buddhas in meditation, due to disguised and powerful gods. Who knows though... I don't, that is up to you to decipher. I certainly hope that you really did experience a Buddha directly through meditation!

 

It really helps to have a living and grounded 3 dimensional teacher though, even if one is having this level of meditative experience, as it's more grounding. If the living Master is a real Master, they will reflect your level of meditative experience and see it directly. It's nice to have that outer reflection of ones inner findings, it's very liberating.

[goldisheavy]

Rigpa.

 

Great! I have taken the refuge then.

 

There is nothing wrong with that, if you have rigpa. There is nothing wrong with that, unless you're dogmatic. If you are beyond that, then it wouldn't matter if you did it. There wouldn't be resistance.

 

Do you agree that dogmatic tendencies are what cloud awareness?

 

Most people instead of eliminating these dogmatic tendencies, take advantage of them by herding people, by gathering armies of dittoheads, etc. The only compassionate approach to dogma is to resolve it right where it appears, whenever it appears. Ignoring the dogma around you while not being caught in it yourself leads to the solitary bodhi. And promoting dogma in any form leads straight to hell.

 

Ok good, but pranaming to a living master takes an entirely different degree of humility,

 

I consider the teachings to be living Buddhas.

 

Sure you can, but that "right away" happens only after paying dues. Isn't that interesting? If you are ready in this lifetime right off the bat, then you already paid your dues in a previous birth.

 

Well, thank the Buddha for that. I mean, thank you! I am talking to you, after all. And it looks like I am able to obtain some consent from you.

 

I don't doubt the experience at all, that is fine. That's awesome in fact! I've as well had many transmissions during the course of my progression through meditative layers. But, that doesn't make one a Buddha.

 

I am glad you approve. The transmission is not what made me Buddha. Think of it as a sign of approval. Kind of like, "good chap! there, there..."

 

Even Demonic people have psychic experiences and can astral project, etc.

 

Absolutely. Some even love to take up a lineage and preach about humility. There is just no way to control the rascals. In fact, the more often someone talks about humility the more likely one is a demon. It's the job of the demon to disempower the person and to make the person into a helpless animal ready for exploitation.

 

The Buddha even warned about seeing so called Buddhas in meditation, due to disguised and powerful gods. Who knows though... I don't, that is up to you to decipher. I certainly hope that you really did experience a Buddha directly through meditation!

 

Why hope? All experiences are empty anyway.

 

It really helps to have a living and grounded 3 dimensional teacher though, even if one is having this level of meditative experience, as it's more grounding.

 

It helps you. I can understand that. That's your karma to work out.

Edited June 1, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Do you agree that dogmatic tendencies are what cloud awareness?

 

 

I do, but dogmas do run deep and subtle.

 

Most people instead of eliminating these dogmatic tendencies, take advantage of them by herding people, by gathering armies of dittoheads, etc. The only compassionate approach to dogma is to resolve it right where it appears, whenever it appears. Ignoring the dogma around you while not being caught in it yourself leads to the solitary bodhi. And promoting dogma in any form leads straight to hell.

 

That would be quite an extreme view. Sometimes dogmas help people, to reuse a metaphor, like blinders on a horse that can't handle seeing the peripheral of the track it needs to run. It's dogmatic to be so anti-dogmatic. They have their purpose for certain people at certain stages of inner development. The Buddha prescribed certain dogmas, but they are all relative and not absolute, they are called precepts. You could say in Christianity they are the 10 commandments.

 

 

I consider the teachings to be living Buddhas.

 

That is good.

 

Well, thank the Buddha for that. I mean, thank you! I am talking to you, after all. And it looks like I am able to obtain some consent from you.

 

Well... I guess you don't need it, but I'm happy to oblige.

 

I am glad you approve. The transmission is not what made me Buddha. Think of it as a sign of approval. Kind of like, "good chap! there, there..."

 

For sure, I hear that, that's definitely the same for me. I concur! Thank goodness for spiritual pats on the back from (seemingly) other more (conventionally speaking) highly evolved beings!

 

Absolutely. Some even love to take up a lineage and preach about humility. There is just no way to control the rascals. In fact, the more often someone talks about humility the more likely one is a demon. It's the job of the demon to disempower the person and to make the person into a helpless animal ready for exploitation.

 

Oh boy... kind of another extreme view. Ah, whatever.

 

Why hope? All experiences are empty anyway.

 

There is only experience, inter-dependently arisen and empty of inherent existence, but they are not "nothing."

 

It helps you. I can understand that. That's your karma to work out.

 

From your statements on here, I feel that it would help you too... but, you are free to take that or leave that. You have your own process.

[goldisheavy]

I do, but dogmas do run deep and subtle.

 

They do.

 

That would be quite an extreme view. Sometimes dogmas help people, to reuse a metaphor, like blinders on a horse that can't handle seeing the peripheral of the track it needs to run. It's dogmatic to be so anti-dogmatic. They have their purpose for certain people at certain stages of inner development. The Buddha prescribed certain dogmas, but they are all relative and not absolute, they are called precepts. You could say in Christianity they are the 10 commandments.

 

Dogmas always hurt people. Give me a dogmatic version of a teaching and I'll give you a non-dogmatic version of the same thing that has equal benefit.

 

Well... I guess you don't need it, but I'm happy to oblige.

 

Well, it depends on how you define "need." I think consent is a beautiful ornament. It decorates the space very nicely. So if possible, I prefer to operate consensually as well as to build new forms of consensus.

 

There is only experience, inter-dependently arisen and empty of inherent existence, but they are not "nothing."

 

I agree.

 

From your statements on here, I feel that it would help you too... but, you are free to take that or leave that. You have your own process.

 

It's always good to have friends. I don't deny that. There are many things that could conceivably benefit me, but it doesn't mean I'll be getting all those things. Sometimes a person has to do with what's available.

 

So your only concern is to benefit me?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Dogmas always hurt people. Give me a dogmatic version of a teaching and I'll give you a non-dogmatic version of the same thing that has equal benefit.

 

 

So the Ten Commandments are inherently hurtful? Hmmm... If the non-dogmatic version is of equal benefit as the dogmatic version... then why change the version?

 

Well, it depends on how you define "need." I think consent is a beautiful ornament. It decorates the space very nicely. So if possible, I prefer to operate consensually as well as to build new forms of consensus.

 

What gets me, is if you consider yourself a nobody, knowing nothing really, why does your body resist the practice of pranaming to a teacher? Or to anybody for that matter? If all beings, even so called, "enemies" are really saying nothing essentially and are nobody really... what harm can a nobody get from bowing to another nobody, or anybody to everybody for that matter?

 

It's always good to have friends. I don't deny that. There are many things that could conceivably benefit me, but it doesn't mean I'll be getting all those things. Sometimes a person has to do with what's available.

 

I can dig it.

 

So your only concern is to benefit me?

 

I'm not that enlightened yet. I also get benefit from the idea of possibly benefiting others. I get high off talking to others about what has benefitted me, just by relaying the experiences through recalling the experiences.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

I think in the higher teachings it talks about One Ground/Two Paths. To know this experientially, the student contemplates on the sutras, train with visualizations on objects such as iconic images of the different Buddhas, the Dharma Protectors, Dakinis and so on, practice the different physical yogas, chanting of mantras, perform mudras, etc. This is called meditation with objects. It is often highly ritualistic and abides strongly with conventions, with the aim of creating structure and discipline within the student, leading to familiarization with and realization of the Form aspect of phenomena, which has an equal role in the ultimate union of Mahamudra.

 

The other half of this union is the realization of the Formless, where the student trains to disengage with structures, models, dogmas, in fact, to drop each and every single notion that comes to the surface as the contemplative process takes place. This is called objectless meditation, where there is nothing to do - the student simply rests the mind, usually by maintaining a low, pervasive awareness of sunyata, or Emptiness. This is why in some traditions the practice usually starts by softly or loosely focussing on the sky, or simply staring out into the vast horizon of the ocean.

 

So both rituals and the dropping of them have a crucial part to play to developing a well-grounded student. Of course, the ultimate aim is to reach a non-fabricated stateless state of complete and utter non-distraction, where Rigpa becomes so pervasive that the small and restricted Self becomes diffused into the vast expanse, but this is easier said than done. This is why the serious practitioner, at least for the first five serious years of conceptualizing the path, is always encouraged not to deviate from the ritualistic demands of whichever tradition he or she finds comfort in. Once stability is reached, then all the practice is internalized, there is no longer any need for outward displays of subservience, because the separation of seeing oneself as different from a buddha has already dropped away. Then whatever actions of respect and affection one displays, or seeing such things as coming from others, its exactly as respecting and being affectionate to oneself, and this, if understood correctly, gives rise to a lot of humility and compassion, but for some who has yet to grasp the teachings and practices fully, then such realizations could lead to a lot of pride and arrogance.

 

Tantrayana is a very responsible undertaking. In hindsight, i am actually glad that those who speak against this path have chosen to do so with such fervor. Its good they have not remained under refuge because really its not a path for everyone.

[C T]

D.P. (again... Its happening quite a lot lately, not sure why)

Edited June 1, 2011 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks CaoTao... this is great! I love reading your writings.

[C T]

Thanks CaoTao... this is great! I love reading your writings.

You are most kind, Vajraridaya _/\_

 

Thank you... i appreciate deeply all that you share here too

[Mandrake]

Tantrayana is a very responsible undertaking. In hindsight, i am actually glad that those who speak against this path have chosen to do so with such fervor. Its good they have not remained under refuge because really its not a path for everyone.

 

You can take very responsible undertakings through other paths as well; and just because one practices Tantrayana doesn't mean that one is responsible.

 

This brushing away of critique is not responsible though; to control the agenda and brush away people who have valid objections against the methods and claims of Tantrayana being proprietary, is certainly not a higher method!

 

 

Mandrake

[ralis]

 

 

Ok good, but pranaming to a living master takes an entirely different degree of humility, especially for us egotistical Westerners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what some Buddhists feed naive people and in this case so called Westerners. Westerners have an ego problem according to enlightened Buddhists? Therefor all Westerners have an ego problem? How do enlightened Buddhists determine and by what criteria, who has an ego problem and who doesn't? Tibetan Buddhists don't have an ego problem? Where is the dividing line between East and West?

 

Seems to me this projection comes from an entitled arrogant mindset which most likely refers to white Europeans and descendants of. Further, does it include the Native Americans of which I am a descendant of? African Americans?

 

Speak for yourself Vajraji! I am really tired of the worn out rhetoric that has been projected upon anyone not conforming to Buddhist standards.

 

On your part, a first person narrative would be appreciated by me.

Edited June 1, 2011 by ralis

[C T]

You can take very responsible undertakings through other paths as well; and just because one practices Tantrayana doesn't mean that one is responsible.

 

This brushing away of critique is not responsible though; to control the agenda and brush away people who have valid objections against the methods and claims of Tantrayana being proprietary, is certainly not a higher method!

 

 

Mandrake

I think you have misunderstood the gist of what has been conveyed.

 

But thanks for the critique all the same.

[Mandrake]

I think you have misunderstood the gist of what has been conveyed.

 

But thanks for the critique all the same.

 

I think I did.

 

With the word "this" I meant that all great cultivation needs great cultivators, rituals or not. I could have been more clear with it, sorry. It is quite possible for a tantrayana practicioner, to be lazy, as it is for practicioners in other lineages. Thus, it isn't defacto more responsible in my opinion. I am thankful for the main part of your post.

 

Mandrake