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

[ralis]

 

You and ralis share in something I call "negaception" Where your conception, reception and perception of something is embittered by the negativity of your personal experiences in life. Thus, there is not an objective and holistic view, as you perceive there to be only dark side everywhere. It's like flipping a coin and getting tails every single time. You justify this to yourself through your concepts, because it's how you are receiving the information as it's being interpreted through your senses in a convoluted way. It's a big negative self deception... "negaception."

 

 

 

What a vivid imagination! Negaception? That is a good one. :lol:

 

What is stated above is the problem with religious belief systems. Always making unfounded judgments based on faulty logic.

[goldisheavy]

Again, your view is very extreme. How is it "evil?"

 

It's evil because it validates the idea that sentient beings should be commanded. This then emboldens and encourages people to go for big power grabs, as well as it gives them a method to subjugate others ("you are commanded to follow God, and since I am the most qualified interpreter of God's word, you are thereby commanded to follow what I say, because what I say is the best and most qualified interpretation of what God means to say").

 

Obviously the blood being spilt had nothing to do with following the 10 commandments, which have, "Thou shalt not kill/murder" as one of them.

 

Wrong. It's more complicated than that. God himself is said to have murdered countless beings, so the example is set that murder is sometimes OK. The Bible is full of murder left and right.

 

Where does murder come from?

 

Well, if people are commanded to do something and they don't do it, how do you deal with it? If you just let it slide, it seems like the commandments aren't all that commanding. The only choice is to murder if you want to remain sane while still believing in the notion of commandments and a commanding and threatening God.

 

This is how commandments imply murder. The only reason people don't murder each other more than they already do, is simply because many people refuse to take the notion of commandments seriously. But the more serious people get about the idea of commandments, the more murder there will be.

 

I would agree with you that some of them are kind of silly, like the whole not carving an image of anything that is in heaven, etc. But seriously, the blood spilt between waring nations had nothing to do with the 10 commandments, it had everything to do with Man's lust for power and prestige.

 

The commandments themselves are an emanation of man's lust for power. They don't come from any kind of God. As a Buddhist, you have to know this.

 

Sure, when you are intelligent enough to think in such a manor, but some people just don't have that capacity and need the blinders for the sake of focus and development.

 

Well, it seems you hold my ability to think in some esteem. Then listen to this, ignorant fool: I command you to stop honoring all commandments. I give you this dogma: follow no dogmas. If you deviate from this, I will punish you.

 

What?

 

You thought I'd include you into the inner circle of those who know?

 

Hell no. You're an ignorant pup. And you just ceded all your power to me by acknowledging someone like me is beyond dogma on the account of my wisdom. I gratefully take your leash into my hand son, because I know how to use you better than you know how to use yourself.

 

What?

 

You don't like that? You want to be free? You say you don't need to be developed in this way? You say you're ready to move on now? That's just your pride talking, son. Back into the pen with you.

 

I hope your eyes are starting to open. This is no way to live for anyone.

 

I agree, but at the same time, then certain people might be too lax about it, they would be like... "oh, whatever about that, that's not supported by any great Authority, they're not rules laid down by God that MUST be followed."

 

Great! That's the point! Let people relax. This isn't something bad. This is a state of affairs that is to be welcomed.

 

Haven't you read Nagarjuna? Sure, you are somebody that knows something on a relative level, not on an ultimate level.

 

Ultimate level is itself relative to the relative level. Thus the ultimate level is not a level of nothingness.

 

You don't inherently exist, neither does your knowledge. If you've really had transmissions from Buddhas in meditation, then you've definitely had formless jhanas in meditation where your identity with localized self awareness is blown out of the water. Why carry this pride of self? Haven't you learned anything from Buddhism?

 

I've learned that there is no point in getting rid of something that doesn't exist in the first place.

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

I'm relatively ignorant of the Buddhist sutras but something that I think is critical and often under-emphasized is that everything, including the concept of dependent origination is subject to this. That is, dependent origination is not Reality either, as you allude to with "the experience is not the words."

 

The experience of DO from the perspective of unstained awareness is Lhun grub (natural formation). You've forgotten the other side of dependent origination which makes it such a great teaching and that's Emptiness which is experienced as Kadag(primordial purity) from the perspective of unstained awareness which is also a dependent arising without inherent self existence.

 

From Wiki:

 

"Causality and interdependent origination

 

In Dzogchen teachings the interdependent origination and any kind of causality is considered illusory: "(One says), 'All these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination.' But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not {inherently} exist.

 

"Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself mind[Wylie: sems, Sanskrit: citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition." [30]

This corresponds to the assertion in the Heart Sutra (Sanskrit: Prajñāpāramitā Hridaya Sūtra), that there is no karma, no law of cause and effect. The assertion was made by bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara in a teaching for the great arhat Shariputra, given before multitude of beings, on request of Buddha Shakyamuni. After the teaching Buddha Shakyamuni greatly praised the wisdom of Avalokiteshvara's words and the beings present rejoiced.[31]"

 

This means that reality is like an illusion, but that reality is dependently originated, and empty of inherent condition or inherent reality thus there is no attachment to DO if rightly understood as empty. But, DO explains everything, and emptiness is the quality of it all that liberates. So, while knowing DO, one is free from DO as a process of DO myself, I am also free from myself.

 

There is no ultimate reality in Buddhism which is what dependent origination is saying, neither karma, neither consciousness, neither self, neither not-self, there is only an ultimate insight into the all including oneself that liberates, and that's the special insight of dependent origination. You as a Buddha recognize your relative existence to everything continuously and thus your awareness experiences the primordial purity (Kadag = emptiness) of everything and all that is done is merely natural formation (lhun grub = dependent origination).

 

Both not-self and self are extreme views, as both arise dependently and are empty of inherent existence.

 

Becoming attached to the concept of DO is no less a potential source of dukkha than attachment to the Hindu atman or anything else. Sometimes I get the impression that you are putting forth DO as if it were a description of Reality "according" to Buddhism and I think this is a misrepresentation. It may only be my misinterpretation of your words, but it is my impression. The only thing Buddha was truly concerned with and explained explicitly was suffering and a prescription to address it - not a doctrine, concept, or ideology to address the nature of Reality. The principle of DO is an exercise, a mindset, a prescription to lessen dukkha associated with an attachment to an explanation of Reality. But DO can easily become a concept to cling too and that is not its purpose. I love the paradox. It seems to me that subsequent teachers have over-emphasized Buddhist "explanations" or "concepts" to describe reality and I think that violates the spirit of the "thunderous silence" and emptiness.

 

As I've stated above, not if it's really understood, as the experience of the truth that D.O. is getting at, is the recognition of it's emptiness. Thunderous silence is not an ultimate reality either, and is not what emptiness means in Buddhism. Both conceptual and non-conceptual states of mind are dependently originated and empty of inherent existence. Attachment to concepts leads one to lower and lower realms of form, and attachment to the non-conceptual like in Hinduism where self/Self (atman/Brahman) is equated with silent formlessness, this leads to higher and higher formless states of consciousness which are good, but not liberation, not Buddhahood.

 

I hope this helps your understanding of what emptiness means in Buddhism. Thank you for your time Steve F.

 

p.s. I'll write here something that I wrote to ralis later on, as he didn't seem to get the gist of my above post...

 

It's not a nihilistic view.

 

It's liberating and filled with the reality of mutability, or non-static malleability. It is definitely life affirming and that is my experience, it's very grounding, it means there is nothing to transcend, that Samsara is Nirvana when rightly seen, or cognized correctly.

 

This is the meaning of my words. This is what I get out of the Buddha teachings. This is what the fullness of Dzogchen is about, the recognition of infinite potential, endless possibility, no static clinging, ever flowing, total opening! This is what the words of the Buddhadharma mean to me.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

[Vajrahridaya]

It's evil because it validates the idea that sentient beings should be commanded. This then emboldens and encourages people to go for big power grabs, as well as it gives them a method to subjugate others ("you are commanded to follow God, and since I am the most qualified interpreter of God's word, you are thereby commanded to follow what I say, because what I say is the best and most qualified interpretation of what God means to say").

 

 

See I think you missed my point. A human being who is deluded as you've stated above will use any excuse to wreak havoc, as they've been doing this through so many excuses before the advent of the Bible's introduction into Europe. They just used the Bible to usurp the many gods into a one god the same way they used the many gods of the old Greek pantheon to usurp other regions and their gods for the sake of power and prestige. This has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments, which just became the new excuse. The Egyptians raged war, the Persians raged war, the Chinese raged war, it's just what deluded humans do, and they use whatever scriptures that have as an excuse. Even the Tibetans used Vajrayana as an excuse to unjustifiably kill Mongolians and Bon practitioners.

 

Sorry, I don't see your correlation as real. If they were really about the 10 commandments, they wouldn't have killed or coveted neighboring countries. It had absolutely nothing to do with following the commandments. I think that's a deluded assumption that doesn't see the true causes and conditions surrounding the violent arrogance of human beings.

 

Wrong. It's more complicated than that. God himself is said to have murdered countless beings, so the example is set that murder is sometimes OK. The Bible is full of murder left and right.

 

Where does murder come from?

 

I agree, the old testament is full of contradiction, so this is what I'm saying, it had nothing to do with following the 10 commandments. It had nothing to do with the Bible even. Look at how long China has been waring with itself!

 

Well, if people are commanded to do something and they don't do it, how do you deal with it? If you just let it slide, it seems like the commandments aren't all that commanding. The only choice is to murder if you want to remain sane while still believing in the notion of commandments and a commanding and threatening God.

 

This is how commandments imply murder. The only reason people don't murder each other more than they already do, is simply because many people refuse to take the notion of commandments seriously. But the more serious people get about the idea of commandments, the more murder there will be.

 

LOL! Oh boy...

 

The commandments themselves are an emanation of man's lust for power. They don't come from any kind of God. As a Buddhist, you have to know this.

 

Of course! Finally, something I can agree on. Still, there have been plenty that took the 10 commandments to heart as well as what Jesus said, and became saints! I think that was the deep mystical meaning of the teachings of Jesus at work and also when someone really is committed to understanding the inner meaning of the 10 commandments in reference to all the positive and goodness that's in the Bible. Like I said to Twinner, very few Buddhists are Buddhas, and likewise, very few Christians are Christ like. But those that are, are the ones who I look at for the example of the tradition. I don't look at the idiots who use it to control people like some Buddhists do with the hierarchy in Buddhism, or what some Christians do with their bible thumping. It has nothing to do with the philosophies, it has everything to do with the individual capacity, nothing more, nothing less. Look at all the waring, raping, pillaging tribes in Africa that lived in the lush areas around the water regions. Then you have the peaceful Bushmen surrounding by nothing, who had more internalized philosophies, though sometimes a bit deluded by superstition, they certainly have better personalities than the tribes that cut the clits off their female kids out of fear of the pleasure in sex, and put rings around their wives necks and enslave other tribes, looooooong before Buddha, Jesus, Abraham, Lau Tzu, what have you. What did they use as their excuse? Some other localized tribal gods... whatever! It has nothing to do with the Bible being dogmatic or not, it has to do with individual or group capacities.

 

Well, it seems you hold my ability to think in some esteem. Then listen to this, ignorant fool: I command you to stop honoring all commandments. I give you this dogma: follow no dogmas. If you deviate from this, I will punish you.

 

What? You thought I'd include you into the inner circle of those who know? Hell no. You're an ignorant pup. And you just ceded all your power to me by aknowledging someone like me is beyond dogma on the account of my wisdom. I gratefully take your leash into my hand son, because I know how to use you better than you know how to use yourself.

 

What?

 

You don't like that? You want to be free? You say you don't need to be developed in this way? You say you're ready to move on now? That's just your pride talking, son. Back into the pen with you.

 

LOL! Yes me bossy! Mahro pranams.. (means bowing in deep feeling and respect)

Great! That's the point! Let people relax. This isn't something bad. This is a state of affairs that is to be welcomed.

 

Sure now, but I think it had it's purpose and played a positive role for plenty of innocent villagers who really followed those commandments with whole heartedness and innocence. There are plenty of examples that can be read about in various autobiographies.

 

 

Ultimate level is itself relative to the relative level. Thus the ultimate level is not a level of nothingness.

 

I was referencing the two truths of Nagarjuna. Not nothingness, not somethingness, both are dependently originated and empty of inherent existence. Just like you and your knowledge.

 

There is only the relative, relativity is the ultimate, both relative and ultimate. The relative which is all, is empty, and empty is empty of being empty.

 

I've learned that there is no point in getting rid of something that doesn't exist in the first place.

 

Then you should have no problem pranaming to a living Master who is merely a reflection of your inner potential. Either that or a mirror of all your faults and of course if you see that in a genuine master, then you are not having a good karmic connection with that teacher and that person is not to be your teacher due to there being no synchronicity. When you see your own higher potential directly reflected from the teacher, that means you are having a good karmic connection as there is a continuum of positive synchronicity or serendipity happening between your inner potential being actualized through the teacher, being reflected back to you and you experience that potential being actualized in you as well. I'm not saying you should give away your power, as that's not the point, and no Master would demand that of you, but you keep saying that, which makes me think that you are scared of something? You keep mentioning the dark side, what happens when the teacher is not a real teacher and the student is not wise enough to see this.

[Vajrahridaya]

If the above is true, then what is the point? This is an argument for a nihilistic world view. Your narrative never is life affirming and doesn't provide hope to change the destructive course of humanity. However, if everyone accepts and is baptized in the waters of DO, then all will be happily blissed out in some far off Buddha realm.

 

Wow, you don't get it. I'll never be the one to put it into the words you need to hear. It's far from nihilistic, it's liberating and filled with the reality of mutability, or non-static malleability. It is definitely life affirming and that is my experience, it's very grounding, it means there is nothing to transcend, that Samsara is Nirvana when rightly seen, or cognized correctly.

 

This is the meaning of my words. This is what I get out of the Buddha teachings. This is what the fullness of Dzogchen is about, the recognition of infinite potential, endless possibility, no static clinging, ever flowing, total opening! This is what my words mean.

 

How is your experience of my words the truth!? They are my words, so your vision of them is not my intention, that is your intention, that is your truth. You obviously prove my theory of "negaception" every time you talk to me about Buddhism.

 

It's unbelievable. I think you really relish in your inability to see the fullness and the light of the Buddhadharma because somewhere inside you, you have to justify some sort of subjective pain you associate with your experience of Buddhism somewhere in the past.

 

There is a bitterness that has sealed your heart towards the dharma.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment to concepts leads one to lower and lower realms of form, and attachment to the non-conceptual like in Hinduism where self/Self (atman/Brahman) is equated with silent formlessness, this leads to higher and higher formless states of consciousness which are good, but not liberation, not Buddhahood.

 

 

 

You are not attached to concepts such as DO and Buddhism is better than Hinduism? Give me an honest answer.

[ralis]

Wow, you don't get it. I'll never be the one to put it into the words you need to hear. It's far from nihilistic, it's liberating and filled with the reality of mutability, or non-static malleability. It is definitely life affirming and that is my experience, it's very grounding, it means there is nothing to transcend, that Samsara is Nirvana when rightly seen, or cognized correctly.

 

Liberating from what? If all phenomena are empty, then there is nothing to liberate from. Although there is no proof, later Buddhist true believers may have revised the Buddha's teachings to make it appear not nihilistic.

 

 

 

Who says the Buddhadharma is full of light? That is just another conceptual notion.

Edited June 2, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You are not attached to concepts such as DO and Buddhism is better than Hinduism? Give me an honest answer.

 

Hinduism doesn't teach Dependent Origination, thus it doesn't teach reality, it's not a path to ultimate liberation as it teaches attachment to a primal source, it teaches independent origination/consciousness. It leads to high rebirth, all the perfection of the mundane siddhis, all the virtues, yes... it takes one to the edge of Samsara, but not liberation in Buddhahood. So, it is a good path, it leads to high rebirth, the god realms, as I've experienced this fact directly, but it has a different aim than Buddhism. The two paths have different intentions in the end.

 

Tell me, why are you so obsessed with me and the things I say about Buddhism. You don't like the things I have to say, and you don't agree with the Buddhadharma, so why not read things that get you happy, make you feel great to be alive. You don't get that from anything I have to say, so why not go to another thread?

 

Why are you so obsessed with me? I think it's because it's true, what I said earlier, that you have a subjective experience in your past that hurt you deeply that you associate with Buddhism, as subjective as it is, you are so convinced of it's reality due to the imprint the experience made on your psyche, that you think you are seeing Buddhism objectively. This is why you are obsessed with me? I don't know, I could be far off. But, I'm just spontaneously brainstorming the possible reasons why you are chasing me around, conflating everything I have to say with your mis-understanding of everything I have to say and your misunderstanding of Buddhism in general, which you say you are so deeply experienced in.

[ralis]

Then you should have no problem pranaming to a living Master who is merely a reflection of your inner potential. Either that or a mirror of all your faults and of course if you see that in a genuine master, then you are not having a good karmic connection with that teacher and that person is not to be your teacher due to there being no synchronicity. When you see your own higher potential directly reflected from the teacher, that means you are having a good karmic connection as there is a continuum of positive synchronicity or serendipity happening between your inner potential being actualized through the teacher, being reflected back to you and you experience that potential being actualized in you as well. I'm not saying you should give away your power, as that's not the point, and no Master would demand that of you, but you keep saying that, which makes me think that you are scared of something? You keep mentioning the dark side, what happens when the teacher is not a real teacher and the student is not wise enough to see this.

 

 

The idea that the so called Master is a reflection of the student is just more manipulation. There is no proof of that.

[Vajrahridaya]

Liberating from what? If all phenomena are empty, then there is nothing to liberate from.

That's the point. It's recognizing that directly and not just seeing it intellectually that the practice is all about.

 

Although there is no proof, later Buddhist true believers may have revised the Buddha's teachings to make it appear not nihilistic.

 

Not revised, just expanded, as the teachings of the original Buddha worked, there were subsequent Buddhas. The original Buddha also taught Mahayana while he was alive on Earth, according to Mahayana, and he also taught some Mahayana after he left this plane of existence to deeply realized meditators. He also taught Vajrayana, the Guhyasamaja Tantra according to Vajrayana. Yes, I am a true believer, based on experience and my critical thinking, as you are a true non-believer, based upon your experience and your level of critical thinking based upon these experiences.

 

Your truth is as dependently originated and empty of inherent existence as my truth, but due to this fact... I find my truth to be more true than your truth as my truth recognizes this fact.

 

Who says the Buddhadharma is full of light? That is just another conceptual notion.

 

Wow, your experience really is trapped in your head isn't it? That's sad.

 

My experiences as backed by the experiences of countless Siddhas and Mahasiddhas from the tradition.

[ralis]

Hinduism doesn't teach Dependent Origination, thus it doesn't teach reality, it's not a path to ultimate liberation as it teaches attachment to a primal source, it teaches independent origination/consciousness. It leads to high rebirth, all the perfection of the mundane siddhis, all the virtues, yes... it takes one to the edge of Samsara, but not liberation in Buddhahood. So, it is a good path, it leads to high rebirth, the god realms, as I've experienced this fact directly, but it has a different aim than Buddhism. The two paths have different intentions in the end.

 

Tell me, why are you so obsessed with me and the things I say about Buddhism. You don't like the things I have to say, and you don't agree with the Buddhadharma, so why not read things that get you happy, make you feel great to be alive. You don't get that from anything I have to say, so why not go to another thread?

 

Why are you so obsessed with me? I think it's because it's true, what I said earlier, that you have a subjective experience in your past that hurt you deeply that you associate with Buddhism, as subjective as it is, you are so convinced of it's reality due to the imprint the experience made on your psyche, that you think you are seeing Buddhism objectively. This is why you are obsessed with me? I don't know, I could be far off. But, I'm just spontaneously brainstorming the possible reasons why you are chasing me around, conflating everything I have to say with your mis-understanding of everything I have to say and your misunderstanding of Buddhism in general, which you say you are so deeply experienced in.

 

 

You are way off in your assessment of me. I have no obsession with you and to accuse me of following you around is beside the point. This is a public forum and your narrative is extremely controversial and is a misrepresentation of Buddhism.

[Vajrahridaya]

The idea that the so called Master is a reflection of the student is just more manipulation. There is no proof of that.

 

You want it all on a petri dish, don't you? You want it all within a little controlled environment so that you can pick it apart and prove that everyones experience, far transcending your own concerning Buddhism, is just delusion, in order to justify your pain and bitterness, right?

 

Come on ralis! Are you really this bitter and under-experienced? Like I said, you went to Buddhism, travelled around it as a tourist, took pictures, made judgements, but you didn't understand it or truly experience it viscerally.

 

That is more clear now for me than it ever has been. I feel bad for you bro, so much bitterness.

[deci belle]

[goldisheavy]

Still, there have been plenty that took the 10 commandments to heart as well as what Jesus said, and became saints!

 

The number of saints compared to the number of murderers doesn't look good. Most people who took the commandments to heart became murderers. Why? Because it's impossible to believe in the commanding nature of the commandments while simultaneously being lenient and merciful with people. The commandments command! They are strict.

 

If God commands fidelity in marriage, then you can understand how stoning is an appropriate response to infidelity. Because you don't screw around with commandments. Do you understand?

 

And is that any way to live? Is this what your years with Chogyal have taught you?

 

If you have any kind of compassion, you will immediately stop defending commandments and dogmas. I mean this Vajra. I want you to change.

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

You want it all on a petri dish, don't you? You want it all within a little controlled environment so that you can pick it apart and prove that everyones experience, far transcending your own concerning Buddhism, is just delusion, in order to justify your pain and bitterness, right?

 

Come on ralis! Are you really this bitter and under-experienced? Like I said, you went to Buddhism, travelled around it as a tourist, took pictures, made judgements, but you didn't understand it or truly experience it viscerally.

 

That is more clear now for me than it ever has been. I feel bad for you bro, so much bitterness.

 

You accuse me of being bitter and that is your opinion. I never said I was! I am just challenging your narrative.

Edited June 2, 2011 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

Then you should have no problem pranaming to a living Master who is merely a reflection of your inner potential.

 

You should have no problem stopping all your pranaming and becoming an egoist once again.

 

I'm not saying you should give away your power, as that's not the point, and no Master would demand that of you, but you keep saying that, which makes me think that you are scared of something? You keep mentioning the dark side, what happens when the teacher is not a real teacher and the student is not wise enough to see this.

 

I don't require a human teacher. When I needed a human teacher, I had many.

[Vajrahridaya]

The number of saints compared to the number of murderers doesn't look good. Most people who took the commandments to heart became murderers. Why? Because it's impossible to believe in the commanding nature of the commandments while simultaneously being lenient and merciful with people. The commandments command! They are strict.

 

I do agree, I find that the ratio is much better in Buddhism due to it's clarity and openness, as the Buddha taught for 45 years while alive and after his death through various human mediums the teachings that are far deeper, far more compassionate, with actual methodology that can be used to bring plenty of people to the state of Buddhahood with greater ease. Christianity doesn't really teach methods on how to become exactly like Christ, people generally had to mix other methods into it from the silk road to get the desired results the mystics talk about.

 

If God commands fidelity in marriage, then you can understand how stoning is an appropriate response to infidelity. Because you don't screw around with commandments. Do you understand?

 

Of course, but they do this in Islam, and they did this in Africa as well. Hindu women threw themselves onto the funeral pyre of their husbands because it was considered horrible to be a widow and if you were a widow you were treated worse than dog shit, and they justified this through the Vedas. I'm saying that humans will use any excuse to justify their bitterness, anger, ignorance and sense of lack within.

 

And is that any way to live? Is this what your years with Chogyal have taught you?

 

If you have any kind of compassion, you will immediately stop defending commandments and dogmas. I mean this Vajra. I want you to change.

 

LOL! Ah never mind... Have a good one bro. Love you man. You're one of the cooler guys in here, I must say.

[Vajrahridaya]

You should have no problem stopping all your pranaming and becoming an egoist once again.

 

 

 

I don't require a human teacher. When I needed a human teacher, I had many.

 

Alright dude, no problem. I don't know you like that. Thanks for the interesting conversation my friend.

 

 

P.S. My eyes are watering with laughter over your last couple of posts. Too funny!!

[goldisheavy]

Alright dude, no problem. I don't know you like that. Thanks for the interesting conversation my friend.

 

 

P.S. My eyes are watering with laughter over your last couple of posts. Too funny!!

 

I just want you to enjoy your life, to be free, to be empowered, and to be intelligent, and to want the same thing for everyone. Everyone should be free, empowered and intelligent.

 

If you raise the horse with the blinders on from an early age, its vision will be permanently damaged. People put blinders on the horses not for the benefit of the horse's inner development, but for their own selfish benefit, because they want to use the horses as transportation engines.

 

It's ironic you were giving an example of exploitation as if it was some kind of merciful and enlightening process. I am only ashamed I didn't notice it sooner.

[ralis]

What I find amusing is that many see Norbu as a parent and father figure. I have seen that displayed in many retreats that I have participated in with him. Very few really understand the entire point of his teachings.

 

He never ever wanted any in his audience to pranam before him. When I first met him, he shook my hand.

[Vajrahridaya]

I just want you to enjoy your life, to be free, to be empowered, and to be intelligent, and to want the same thing for everyone. Everyone should be free, empowered and intelligent.

 

If you raise the horse with the blinders on from an early age, its vision will be permanently damaged. People put blinders on the horses not for the benefit of the horse's inner development, but for their own selfish benefit, because they want to use the horses as transportation engines.

 

It's ironic you were giving an example of exploitation as if it was some kind of merciful and enlightening process. I am only ashamed I didn't notice it sooner.

 

LOL! Oh boy... It's all about the intent of the metaphor, which is why it's a metaphor, you are thinking way to deeply into it.

 

Also, I don't agree. Just like in Buddhism, the Buddha taught the precepts to his monks, only eat once a day at noon, don't take meat that has been killed for you, no sex, no intoxicants. He also had precepts for his lay disciples. These are dogmas, these are commandments from the Buddha for those particular beings at that particular time, Mahayana has it's own precepts, and Vajrayana has it's own as well. Dzogchen's main precept is to just stay in Rigpa, but if you can't do that, there are precepts in Dzogchen as well, rules, guidelines, etc. All relative, which is understood because it's Buddhism, even though plenty of Buddhists just don't get that and get all strict in their mind about these training procedures.

 

I just don't see it like you do buddy. I'm fine with that.

[ralis]

LOL! Oh boy... It's all about the intent of the metaphor, which is why it's a metaphor, you are thinking way to deeply into it.

 

Also, I don't agree. Just like in Buddhism, the Buddha taught the precepts to his monks, only eat once a day at noon, don't take meat that has been killed for you, no sex, no intoxicants. He also had precepts for his lay disciples. These are dogmas, these are commandments from the Buddha for those particular beings at that particular time, Mahayana has it's own precepts, and Vajrayana has it's own as well. Dzogchen's main precept is to just stay in Rigpa, but if you can't do that, there are precepts in Dzogchen as well, rules, guidelines, etc. All relative, which is understood because it's Buddhism, even though plenty of Buddhists just don't get that and get all strict in their mind about these training procedures.

 

I just don't see it like you do buddy. I'm fine with that.

 

 

Dzogchen transcends all isms and dogma. It is not Buddhism. If it were, then Dzogchen would be a limited conceptual dogmatic notion just like any other religion.

Edited June 2, 2011 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

LOL! Oh boy... It's all about the intent of the metaphor, which is why it's a metaphor, you are thinking way to deeply into it.

 

You used a perfect metaphor that illumined the foul nature of dogma. Of course you didn't consciously intend to cut the branch you sat on. But you cut it anyway because you are absentminded. You didn't reflect on the metaphor you used.

 

I thought about your horse blinders metaphor for a whole hour or two. That's why even though I missed the implications at first, I eventually picked them up.

 

Also, I don't agree. Just like in Buddhism, the Buddha taught the precepts to his monks, only eat once a day at noon, don't take meat that has been killed for you, no sex, no intoxicants.

 

The difference between voluntary training precepts aimed specifically and narrowly at Buddha's students, and compulsory commandments aimed at the whole of humanity is one staggering difference.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dzogchen transcends all isms and dogma. It is not Buddhism. If it were, then Dzogchen would be a limited conceptual dogmatic notion just like any other religion.

 

Dzogchen just means primordial awareness. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche still teaches Vajrayana/Dzogchen according to the Nyingmapa lineage. He has said, "I am a Buddhist and I teach Buddhism."

 

Norbu merely reflected all your ideas about everything, as everything is a mirror, the poor guy is innocent of your projections. Just as I am free and not confined by your projections. I doubt you read any of his books, really listened to any of his talks, I doubt you have even experienced Rigpa. Not that you don't have it, but that you didn't recognize it. Your understanding is far too lacking.