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

[ralis]

That's your interpretation of what he said, he never said enslave. Children need limitations just as spiritual children need limitations and precepts.

 

Dzogchen is considered the highest yana, it's not for everyone, as exemplified by you and GIH. It's become this absolutist ideal where all others are absolutely wrong, they are only relatively wrong, it all depends upon the individuals. What you guys seem to see Dzogchen as is a kind of Subjective Monist Idealism.

 

Also, I hear your over critical self all the time ralis. I know why you don't follow the practices or teachings, because you think you are so great and so smart. You think oh, "Look at all these other stupid people, clamoring for love from the Rinpoche, I can see it on his face, he's disgusted, just like me, I'm so great, because we shook hands, like regular people, look at all these dim wits."

 

It's all your mirror ralis.

 

 

Norbu's students are children in his eyes or are they children in your eyes? I think you just make stuff up! Monist idealism? You are just making it all up! :lol:

[C T]

I am a Buddhist too, and self-admittedly dogmatic to a certain extent. That said, I have to whole heatedly agree with Ralis. I have hosted Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, who is also my Root teacher, twice at my home and he, at no pointed prescribed to the "kind" of Buddhism that is being displayed here - arrogant, ignorant and televangelist. I write this here not because I want to add to the drama. But only to tell those that might be currently considering Buddhist studies or to study with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu or other Dzogchen or Mahamudra practices - that one should not take Vajra are representing the Master whose name is being thrown around generously here or his teachings. Don't be put off by this kind of branding here, which is obviously not close to anything that can be considered as a skillful means. Vajra is not Norbu's spokesperson and by his handling of this thread, not even an authority to comment on his teaching. I will make some posts here reachable to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and his close circle as I am interested to see what he has to say about such representation of Dzogchen and Norbu's teachings. I will possibly require two more weeks before I can do this, but I will try. Such presentation creates a bad impression of Dzogchen and especially teachings of Norbu who has pioneered the attempt to make Dzogchen non-sectarian, if interpreted as coming from some official source of Dzogchen community. As for Namdrol, it is no secret that many prominent teachers of Tibetan Buddhism do not want to officially associate with him today, for obvious reasons.

 

And Goldisheavy, some posts of yours on this thread are true gems! I fail to understand how someone can debate those, and that too through mere personal attacks, and repeatedly. Like you said, Dzogchen tantras do criticize everything that is non-Dzogchen, including Mahamudra. While the original tantras are moderate in their criticism, the commentators are quite critical of everything non-dzogchen, often with a good reason. Thanks for making this thread worthy of reading.

The only person 'throwing around' Chogyal's name in a openly covert and disrespectful manner is not Vaj. You are kindly requested to reassess your friendly threat with an extra dose of skillful mental evaluation as to who is for who, and who is determined to undermine what. From what you have written, I can understand your aversions, since its quite a common practice to regard oneself as the true 'son' and others with the same teacher as less than deserving of the teacher's affection. Its a trap, and you have fallen for it, but i know you probably mean well, which makes it even more prone to things being blown out of proportion.

 

Skillful means does not refer to others having to say or do what's right by your moral standards, o Buddhist. It means to discern one's own thinking, speaking and acting in such a way where karmic repercussions are least likely to leave a lasting trace, or better yet, no trace at all. It is a reminder to self, not a yardstick to measure another's lack from your window. Who are you to judge? Just because what's been said are being rejected by one or more parties in no way represents a lack of adeptness of one's understanding of Dharma. The sensitive issue here is that some posters are not debating ethically and with related substance, choosing instead to dwell on too many 'what ifs....', hence causing the perimeters to blur in the process. This is why, i am guessing, that there is such a thing as 'hidden termas', revealed only when people are ready. Sometimes this may take years, even lifetimes, but do not be discouraged, as you could always humbly request a swifter revelation from the 'closed circle'.

[Pero]

I write this here not because I want to add to the drama.

You've just added to it, perhaps more than anyone so far.

 

I will make some posts here reachable to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and his close circle as I am interested to see what he has to say about such representation of Dzogchen and Norbu's teachings.

 

If you really want to know Rinpoche's view I can already tell you since a similar situation arose on E-Sangha once where someone decided to tattle on the discussions, but at least he did not make into a kind of childish threat like you. Anyway, he would not approve of this discussion, at all. So there is really no need to bother him about it, he is busy enough as it is, without having to read pages of some pointless drivel.

 

 

Such presentation creates a bad impression of Dzogchen and especially teachings of Norbu who has pioneered the attempt to make Dzogchen non-sectarian, if interpreted as coming from some official source of Dzogchen community.

I doubt anyone is interpreting it as such.

[doc benway]

But you see, how is thunderous silence not taking a position, it is a formless position, a good position, but still a position. How did the experience arise, and who is experiencing it, how do you know it's silent unless you are there to contemplate it? Is it apposed to concepts?

 

I've experienced Thundereous Silence so many times over my years of practice, sometimes many times a day. I know the experience, it's just the mind illuminating the unconscious, the space within pryer to thought, but thoughts have their seeds there in a formless realm. It's a necessary step, but it's not considered complete Buddhahood. According to the Buddha, it's one of the formless jhanas.

 

Are you familiar with the formless Jhanas? Infinite space, Infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, neither perception nor non-perception. All these are formless jhanas. What Buddhism states is that there is no state of mind that is the ultimate truth, neither conceptual, nor non-conceptual.

 

 

 

I think your last statement says it all. How much of the Buddhas teaching in the Pali Cannon have you read? Do you know that he said, "dependent origination is the all, there is nothing outside of dependent origination" he also said that it is the whole of the Dharma, and that to see it, is the see the Buddha. But, see it's kind of a trick, because to see dependent origination, is to see right through it, that there is nothing really there substantially. There is nothing to grasp and nobody to do the grasping really, complete freedom from self. If this is what you mean by Thunderous Silence, then that's the result of seeing D.O. But if you reify your experience of Thunderous Silence as a single source of all existence, that self exists on it's own, that would not be seeing dependent origination.

 

So, maybe there is more that it has to reveal to you? Maybe you didn't thoroughly understand everything that I said in my last post? Then again, maybe you did and I didn't explain it succinctly enough. I don't know. I'm not in your head, so I don't know. What you think of as Thunderous Silence might be the experience of infinite nothingness? I don't know. You'll have to mull that around as it's your description of an experience, not mine, but if you are having this level of open experience, with bliss and insight within the formless level, you might want to read what the Buddha had to say about the formless realms, if you want to step into what the Buddha taught a little deeper that is?

 

The point of D.O. is that there is no "experience" that is the ultimate experience. This is why he had the insight of D.O. after he had all the silent, non-conceptual levels of formless states of mind. That's why he said that this is the "right view" that liberates.

 

Thanks for the good wishes Steve.

Thanks for the reply - good stuff to think about. I have no doubt that there is more to be revealed to me! Whether or not I'll ever wade through the entire Pali cannon is another matter altogether.

The two perspectives still feel a bit different to me -

Silence tells me that reality simply is. No need for words.

DO tells me that reality isn't, in words.

I'll go with the former...

 

Just my current perspective and experience, quite possibly skewed or erroneous.

But it seems to work for me right now.

If all is emptiness, there's certainly enough room for both of us.

[Aaron]

I think the irony is that most of the people that are introduced to Buddhism on this site, probably have the same image of Buddhists as they do Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. In defense of Buddhism, if you meet Buddhists in the real world, they are not nearly as dogmatic or serious about all this. It's more of a, if you're interested that's fine, if not, that's fine too, kind of attitude. The people on this website do not represent the majority of Buddhists, just try and keep that in mind.

 

Aaron

[lifeforce]

The people on this website do not represent the majority of Buddhists, just try and keep that in mind.

 

Well said. I know several Buddhists and they would never get into a slanging match, whether in day to day activities, or online. It makes a mockery out of the teachings to be honest.

[Vajrahridaya]

Norbu's students are children in his eyes or are they children in your eyes? I think you just make stuff up! Monist idealism? You are just making it all up! :lol:

 

Yea that's right ralis, great way to deny, I make it all up.

 

Tell me ralis, this is an important question. Do you believe in the Rainbow Body?

 

Rainbow Body

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for the reply - good stuff to think about. I have no doubt that there is more to be revealed to me! Whether or not I'll ever wade through the entire Pali cannon is another matter altogether.

 

A bit of a daunting process I do agree. But helpful if one wants to really know what the guy taught. He didn't teach for 45 years to hear himself talk. His teachings are unparalleled. What other fire starter from 2,500 years ago taught in such a systemized and clear manor? As well as revealing various truths from so many different perspectives? He seems to be the only one who actually started a system of self liberating methods that kept going as a tradition long after his passing.

 

One can't say that about Jesus, or Lau Tzu and other such ancient Masters who's teachings we only have very little of. Jesus only taught for 3 years.

 

 

The two perspectives still feel a bit different to me -

Silence tells me that reality simply is. No need for words.

DO tells me that reality isn't, in words.

I'll go with the former...

 

Don't worry, D.O. is not saying reality isn't, that would be an extreme view, and we know there is no such thing as non-existence, there is only infinite potential. What D.O. says is that it's all relative, and that's ultimate.

 

D.O. is not just words for me, it is indeed including the roaring sound of silence. It just reminds me that this too is empty of inherent existence, which is an even deeper contemplation into the experience of silence, like silencing the silence kind of non-thing.

 

Just my current perspective and experience, quite possibly skewed or erroneous.

But it seems to work for me right now.

If all is emptiness, there's certainly enough room for both of us.

 

There most definitely is Steve!! Plenty of room. Thanks for the openess and non-judgmental attitude.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Well said. I know several Buddhists and they would never get into a slanging match, whether in day to day activities, or online. It makes a mockery out of the teachings to be honest.

 

Where do you get this idea that Buddhism has never been about open debate? The thing that I see here is a whole bunch of people getting offended at someone who is just openly expressing his views and debating other views.

 

The Buddha debated, Nagarjuna debated and taught people how to debate. All the great ancient Buddhists debated, unless they were in retreat. Nalanda was a school where debate was held in high esteem, because it refines the view, it refines the mind, it refines the practice, it challenges the tendency for clinging.

 

In Vajrayana Buddhism, the Gelugpa's use debating as part of the practice of letting go, broadening and refining the view for the students.

 

Are your beliefs like flower petals? Too delicate? Can your view not be challenged?

I'm in one thread, started by a person who is interested in Vajrayana. Get over yourselves. I've met tons of Buddhists, and most of them don't even know their own texts, their own history, they just sit and meditate, which is fine, and that is good. But, they haven't actually studied Buddhist history and the teachings of the ancient Buddhist masters of antiquity. I have. Maybe I'm erroneously too proud of this fact... sure, I'm a Buddhist, not a Buddha. But, no real Buddhist actually challenges my overall view, they agree with the gist of it. On Buddhist boards they agree, unless they are staunch Theravadins with a Theravadin interpretation of the Pali Texts of course, which even has different schools of interpretation within it's school. So whatever... I'm my own school, I'm an all yana school. LOL!! I like myself, I like what I've learned and there are other people who like it too. Because you people don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

 

check yourself! Yes, your view has just been challenged!

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Anyway, he would not approve of this discussion, at all.

 

In what way Pero, should Dzogchen just be talked about amongst Dzogchenpas?

 

Maybe so, that's why I just try to keep my discussions and debate about sutra.

[doc benway]

Don't worry, D.O. is not saying reality isn't, that would be an extreme view, and we know there is no such thing as non-existence, there is only infinite potential. What D.O. says is that it's all relative, and that's ultimate.

Thanks for the openess and non-judgmental attitude.

No worries at all.

Be well.

[goldisheavy]

How many are even willing to sacrifice one year to attain shamatha? In a way, spiritual practices are similar to martial arts

 

But in martial arts you can compete with others, and the purpose of the art is largely a political one. It's only later on, I believe, that people started using martial arts as a vehicle for self-discovery. I think in the old age martial arts were a lot more pragmatic, they were about staying alive and killing the enemies.

 

In the spiritual arts there is no competition. In fact, trying to compete with others in the spiritual arts is a big no-no. Spiritual arts by their necessity are subjective for the most part. (Except if you consider wisdom to be something spiritual, it can be tested in a debate.)

 

What I find is this.

 

If wisdom is what you want, you need to do some practice, and once that's done (roughly 12 years of correct practice which is split between meditation and contemplation and experimenting with consciousness), assuming you are serious, you'll get it. You'll have your wisdom. After that, you don't need to do a thing. It's automatic and lasting from then on. In fact, wisdom kind of starts to mature on its own without any practice once it gets going (mindfulness becomes effortless and enjoyable).

 

Now, spiritual powers, siddhis, that's a whole another matter!! If you want siddhis, yes, you have to practice incessantly at all times without stop. 12 years is not enough. 30 years is not enough, and 5 lifetime is also not enough. Nothing is ever enough when it comes to spiritual powers because there is really no upper ceiling on those.

 

Personally I think siddhis are a good thing, especially in moderation. I think everyone should have at least the ability to speed up healing, if nothing else.

 

But it's just like with strength and muscles. Some people want to lift cars and others are happy if they can lift a 50 lbs kettlebell. What is the best way to live? Is our life to be structured around lifting greater and greater weights? I don't think that's for everyone. I think some people will take this kind of challenge up, and more power to them. Let those people inspire us, or amuse us, whatever.

 

I think wisdom should be obligatory and everyone should seek it. Powers are nice to have, but they are not obligatory, and it's powers that require the most diligent practice and not something else.

 

So if you want to learn to control your mind, learn to visualize complex objects, learn to manipulate reality, learn to memorize crazy amount of facts, learn to read faster than normal, learn to tolerate extreme temperatures, learn to stop your digestion process at will, learn to start and stop sweating at will, ejaculate or withdraw ejaculation at will, etc., etc., etc., etc., (this list is without limit), then you need to practice practice practice without limit.

 

Wisdom doesn't require limitless practice. It just requires some.

 

Wisdom can be tested in a debate at least.

 

Spiritual powers can only be tested if your karma/intent is right to create conditions required to manifest such a thing as a test of siddhis.

Edited June 3, 2011 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

Yea that's right ralis, great way to deny, I make it all up.

 

Tell me ralis, this is an important question. Do you believe in the Rainbow Body?

 

Rainbow Body

 

Why are you asking me this? Whether I believe or not is irrelevant. I have never seen this phenomena and most never will. Therefor, your question is about faith based phenomena which is based on a few occurrences that I should accept on faith.

Edited June 3, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Why are you asking me this? Whether I believe or not is irrelevant. I have never seen this phenomena and most never will. Therefor, your question is about faith based phenomena which is based on a few occurrences that I should accept on faith.

 

Actually it's about understanding, as well as the inner experience revealing it's possibility. Like when your awareness illumines it's bodies elemental radiance's directly, there are visions that happen, or appearances you could say that make the faith in the possibility of the rainbow body genuine and based upon direct wisdom rather than literary inference, even though, after these experiences, it does become logical.

 

If you have Thogal experience, you know it's true, otherwise it's just a transmission you got without actually having the experience.

 

I have faith in the Rainbow Body, in fact, I have no doubt! In this lack of doubt, I have confidence, and it's all based upon direct experience.

 

I ask, because I want to show you that you really have no place in being so hyper critical of me and my understanding. You can stop following me around saying that you are a Dzogchenpa, which you haven't said that. You just say you got transmission and you met ChNNR and you also say how much you judged everyone around him revealing your sense of superiority, and that you shook his hand, making it seem like this is so wonderful and great, because it's the formalized Western style greeting which is so much better than the Eastern formalized type of greeting, where you give a white scarf and do a bow, because oh, we're so scientific and grounded.

 

Now, come on...

[ralis]

Actually it's about understanding, as well as the inner experience revealing it's possibility. Like when your awareness illumines it's bodies elemental radiance's directly, there are visions that happen, or appearances you could say that make the faith in the possibility of the rainbow body genuine and based upon direct wisdom rather than literary inference, even though, after these experiences, it does become logical.

 

If you have Thogal experience, you know it's true, otherwise it's just a transmission you got without actually having the experience.

 

I have faith in the Rainbow Body, in fact, I have no doubt! In this lack of doubt, I have confidence, and it's all based upon direct experience.

 

I ask, because I want to show you that you really have no place in being so hyper critical of me and my understanding. You can stop following me around saying that you are a Dzogchenpa, which you haven't said that. You just say you got transmission and you met ChNNR and you also say how much you judged everyone around him revealing your sense of superiority, and that you shook his hand, making it seem like this is so wonderful and great, because it's the formalized Western style greeting which is so much better than the Eastern formalized type of greeting, where you give a white scarf and do a bow, because oh, we're so scientific and grounded.

 

Now, come on...

 

 

I thought it might be one of your trick questions. How do you know I answered anything except what you wanted to hear. Then your inflated self jumped in and condemned me. All you want to do is create the exclusive Dzogchen club led by you!

 

I have had certain experiences while doing solitary retreats which I never discuss ,which confirms certain teachings of Dzogchen.

 

BTW, you are not the absolute arbiter of truth.

Edited June 3, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I thought it might be one of your trick questions. How do you know I answered anything except what you wanted to hear. Then your inflated self jumped in and condemned me. All you want to do is create the exclusive Dzogchen club led by you!

 

I have had certain experiences while doing solitary retreats which I never discuss ,which confirms certain teachings of Dzogchen.

 

BTW, you are not the absolute arbiter of truth.

 

Nice cowardly self protection.

 

No exclusivist club. Supposedly other beings from other traditions also attained the Rainbow Body, but I don't know if their intention for it's attainment was the same as it is in Mahamudra and Dzogchen? That could be debated.

 

Like you, I am not the soul owner and supplier of truth. I am not after having a cult following. But, I do have confidence in what I talk about based on study and experience. From your various statements about proof of a teacher mirroring a student, etc. I see that you don't have much direct insight. That's just my opinion, but I'm quite confident in it as you say silly things like, "where's the proof?" Well, the proof is in the pudding. You don't seem to have any. That's just my opinion. Of course, I'll just let that go and you can be you, and I'll be me. Please continue to enlighten yourself and I guess since you doubt that you will ever attain the Rainbow Body yourself from your previous remark, you don't have much confidence in the state of Rigpa.

 

Ah well.

 

p.s. You decided to start giving me "tough love", or whatever it is you call it, "critical analysis?" some 2 years ago, so here's some back at cha.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

Where do you get this idea that Buddhism has never been about open debate? The thing that I see here is a whole bunch of people getting offended at someone who is just openly expressing his views and debating other views.

 

The Buddha debated, Nagarjuna debated and taught people how to debate. All the great ancient Buddhists debated, unless they were in retreat. Nalanda was a school where debate was held in high esteem, because it refines the view, it refines the mind, it refines the practice, it challenges the tendency for clinging.

 

In Vajrayana Buddhism, the Gelugpa's use debating as part of the practice of letting go, broadening and refining the view for the students.

 

Are your beliefs like flower petals? Too delicate? Can your view not be challenged?

I'm in one thread, started by a person who is interested in Vajrayana. Get over yourselves. I've met tons of Buddhists, and most of them don't even know their own texts, their own history, they just sit and meditate, which is fine, and that is good. But, they haven't actually studied Buddhist history and the teachings of the ancient Buddhist masters of antiquity. I have. Maybe I'm erroneously too proud of this fact... sure, I'm a Buddhist, not a Buddha. But, no real Buddhist actually challenges my overall view, they agree with the gist of it. On Buddhist boards they agree, unless they are staunch Theravadins with a Theravadin interpretation of the Pali Texts of course, which even has different schools of interpretation within it's school. So whatever... I'm my own school, I'm an all yana school. LOL!! I like myself, I like what I've learned and there are other people who like it too. Because you people don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

 

check yourself! Yes, your view has just been challenged!

 

Hello Vaj,

 

What I see is the literal transmission of knowledge without experience. I have experienced enlightenment directly and I don't feel the need to say that "I know this is the absolute truth", because I know the truth is only within my mind, it is merely an illusion, nothing I know is sacred. You can say, "this is a lie, I know the truth," but I know the truth is that you are a man and I am a man, and that we are no more knowledgeable about the truth than the squirrel gathering nuts for the winter.

 

When a man walks down the street and stops to watch a gardener tend his garden, sees the gardener knows what he is doing by the fruit that his garden bears, then he will ask the gardener how he should tend his own garden. The master does not seek the student, the student seeks the master. The master does not proclaim his knowledge, but rather is known because of his practice. The truth lies in breathing each breath without thinking about that breath, the ability to live in the moment aware that this moment is the entirety of everything and nothing, all within the space of that breath.

 

Give up what you have learned and then you will realize the truth of what you have learned. Give up your independence and then you will gain independence. Give up your freedom and you will be free. It's as simple as that.

 

Aaron

Edited June 3, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

What I see is the literal transmission of knowledge without experience. I have experienced enlightenment directly and I don't feel the need to say that "I know this is the absolute truth", because I know the truth is only within my mind, it is merely an illusion, nothing I know is sacred. You can say, this is a lie, I know the truth, but I know the truth is that you are a man and I am a man, and that we are no more knowledgeable about the truth than the squirrel gathering nuts for the winter.

 

Ok, here is where I doubt you. If you had experience of the nature of things, you would be able to see how the squirrels physical apparatus doesn't have the same potential for self transcendence as a human body. Also, tell me, what is a man? Is a man what science says a man is? Do you even know your body? Even doctors with PHD's don't really know much beyond what they know of the body, and a yogi can known things about the bodies potential that a doctor wouldn't know, just as a doctor would know things that a yogi wouldn't know. As well, a Chinese Medicine Doctor would know things different from a Western PHD Doctor. I don't feel that I am "just a man." I feel that there is more to it than that, through my experiences in yoga and meditation. Science is still trying to figure out what a Man is. We know we are carbon based, we know we need air, etc. But, the secular world does not know exactly how connected everything is, and how deep awareness can actually go. Physics is finally making strides in finding out how connected everything is, like I've heard that new documentary, "I Am" is talking about. Which I would like to see.

 

When a man walks down the street and stops to watch a man tend his garden, sees the man knows what he is doing by the fruit that his garden bears, then he will ask the man how he should tend his garden. The master does not seek the student, the student seeks the master. The master does not proclaim his knowledge, but rather is known because of his practice. The truth lies in breathing each breath without thinking about that breath, the ability to live in the moment aware that this moment is the entirety of everything and nothing, all within the space of that breath.

 

Aaron

 

 

Sure, that's very nice and I could always use a reminder. Thank you, I felt that. But breathing alone will not liberate you from unconscious rebirth, it will only liberate you from the tension of not having enough air in your system... unless you are open to energetic levels of prana, which is a good thing and awareness of this is a major part of spiritual practice. But, there is kumbaka (of which there are different types), which is where the breath becomes still and different chakras open towards higher potentialities.

 

The argument with ralis doesn't have to do with that, it has to do with why he has imposed himself as the true critical eye of my expose, and knower of the true nature of Buddhas teachings, which to him are to corral, coerce, and control people for the sake of hierarchal profiteering, which is just preposterous nonsense based upon what I deemed before as "negaception." People just do that anyway and they'll use any method at their disposal to do as such, whether it be religion or the stock market. This has nothing to do with the Buddhas intention in his teaching.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Give up what you have learned and then you will realize the truth of what you have learned. Give up your independence and then you will gain independence. Give up your freedom and you will be free. It's as simple as that.

 

Aaron

 

This is only part of the realization of dependent origination/emptiness.

[Aaron]

Ok, here is where I doubt you. If you had experience of the nature of things, you would be able to see how the squirrels physical apparatus doesn't have the same potential for self transcendence as a human body. Also, tell me, what is a man? Is a man what science says a man is? Do you even know your body? Even doctors with PHD's don't really know much beyond what they know of the body, and a yogi can known things about the bodies potential that a doctor wouldn't know, just as a doctor would know things that a yogi wouldn't know. As well, a Chinese Medicine Doctor would know things different from a Western PHD Doctor. I don't feel that I am "just a man." I feel that there is more to it than that, through my experiences in yoga and meditation. Science is still trying to figure out what a Man is. We know we are carbon based, we know we need air, etc. But, the secular world does not know exactly how connected everything is, and how deep awareness can actually go. Physics is finally making strides in finding out how connected everything is, like I've heard that new documentary, "I Am" is talking about. Which I would like to see.

 

 

 

 

Sure, that's very nice and I could always use a reminder. Thank you, I felt that. But breathing alone will not liberate you from unconscious rebirth, it will only liberate you from the tension of not having enough air in your system... unless you are open to energetic levels of prana, which is a good thing and awareness of this is a major part of spiritual practice. But, there is kumbaka (of which there are different types), which is where the breath becomes still and different chakras open towards higher potentialities.

 

The argument with ralis doesn't have to do with that, it has to do with why he has imposed himself as the true critical eye of my expose, and knower of the true nature of Buddhas teachings, which to him are to corral, coerce, and control people for the sake of hierarchal profiteering, which is just preposterous nonsense based upon what I deemed before as "negaception." People just do that anyway and they'll use any method at their disposal to do as such, whether it be religion or the stock market. This has nothing to do with the Buddhas intention in his teaching.

 

That's the problem Vaj, your cup is full, how can anyone give you anymore tea?

 

Empty your cup and listen for a second. A man is a man. A flower is a flower. I am here right now. You are here right now. God is here right now. Take it all away and it is gone. Asking what is a man does not mean you will have an answer that is satisfactory. Quit worrying about what a man is and just be a man. Quit worrying about what Buddha said and instead close your eyes and listen to the world around you.

 

The trick is not to close your eyes and concentrate to the point that you don't hear the bees buzzing, but rather to close your eyes and listen, to let the bees buzz, let the cars pass by and be in this place that you are at. Without knowing where you are at, you will never know what you are, because what you are is intricately linked to where you are.

 

I have said this so many times I think it should be my mantra. I am "It", you are "It", we all are "It". Have I seen past myself? Yes. But I know I am myself. Even in knowing that I am "It". God is me and God is you. Close your eyes and you see God. Open your eyes and you see God. Destroy the world and God will create it again. That's the truth, but it's also a lie, because you can't have the truth without a lie. I am a man, but I am not a man. I am a body, mind, and spirit, but I am not one without the other, but I am still am when they are separate. I am still "It" even if I am not I.

 

To say that thought is an illusion is true, but thought is real, just as you are real. To say that the flower is not really there is true, but it is also there. Close your eyes and the flower is still there. You smell it and feel it, even if you do not see it. That is what you're missing.

 

I am not Buddha, but I don't have to be to see that you are throwing darts at the dartboard, hoping to hit the bullseye. Stop throwing darts and forget about the bullseye. When you can do that then I think you will do much better. Buddha does not need a defender, nor does he need you, but you seem to think you need Buddha. You don't, you just think you do.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

Nice cowardly self protection.

 

 

That is very Buddhist of you. Resorting to name calling is really low!

Edited June 3, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

That's the problem Vaj, your cup is full, how can anyone give you anymore tea?

 

Plenty of teachers have things to teach me, I learn everyday from life. But literally from the point of you of you trying to teach me something here, sure, I will listen, but I don't find you qualified enough to be some enlightened teacher. I don't find your insight to be any deeper than the regular mystical theist out there. Which I used to be.

 

 

Empty your cup and listen for a second. A man is a man. A flower is a flower. I am here right now. You are here right now. God is here right now. Take it all away and it is gone. Asking what is a man does not mean you will have an answer that is satisfactory. Quit worrying about what a man is and just be a man. Quit worrying about what Buddha said and instead close your eyes and listen to the world around you.

 

You really have the wrong impression of me buddy. Also, sorry, no God here brother. There are many gods, some of them are deluded in thinking they are the one true god and they have lots of power and bliss and they coerce people into thinking this, even on formless, non-conceptual levels. Is your cup empty enough to hear me?

 

I don't worry about being a man, I know what it is to be a man, and I know it's potential beyond that which can be recognized by science at this time. But, they are trying, by hooking up monitors to Buddhist yogis and compiling new theories based upon their findings.

 

 

The trick is not to close your eyes and concentrate to the point that you don't hear the bees buzzing, but rather to close your eyes and listen, to let the bees buzz, let the cars pass by and be in this place that you are at. Without knowing where you are at, you will never know what you are, because what you are is intricately linked to where you are.

 

Thank you, that's very nice. I've done years of meditation, I experienced the 2nd Jhana in pre-school. Most likely because my mother meditated while I was in the womb and did yoga while I was in the womb, thus my first body postures were yogic postures as they laid the deepest impressions in my brain developing in her womb.

 

From the Buddha on the 2nd Jhana:

 

[sECOND JHANA] Here is where this description is from along with the other form Jhanas which you are describing: Rupajhana

 

"Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure.

 

"Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from within, having no inflow from east, west, north, or south, and with the skies periodically supplying abundant showers, so that the cool fount of water welling up from within the lake would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill it with cool waters, there being no part of the lake unpervaded by the cool waters; even so, the monk permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure...

 

I have said this so many times I think it should be my mantra. I am "It", you are "It", we all are "It". Have I seen past myself? Yes. But I know I am myself. Even in knowing that I am "It". God is me and God is you. Close your eyes and you see God. Open your eyes and you see God. Destroy the world and God will create it again. That's the truth, but it's also a lie, because you can't have the truth without a lie. I am a man, but I am not a man. I am a body, mind, and spirit, but I am not one without the other, but I am still am when they are separate. I am still "It" even if I am not I.

 

Buddhahood is beyond "god" this Alpha and Omega you've experienced, with great bliss and rapture in the higher jhanas, even if into the formless jhanas. I don't know if you've been to the formless Jhanas as of yet? Maybe, still... the truth of D.O. is deeper. I've experienced all the Jhanas, from form to formless at different points in my life.

 

Here are the 4 arupajhanas, which have nothing to do with intellectual formulations:

 

 

The four arūpajhānas : Formless Samadhis. Arupajhanas

 

While rupajhanas (form jhanas) differ considering their characteristics, arupajhanas differ as their object is determined by the level of the jhana:

 

fifth jhāna: infinite space,

 

sixth jhāna: infinite consciousness,

 

seventh jhāna: infinite nothingness,

 

eighth jhāna: neither perception nor non-perception.

 

This has to be understood. In the fourth rupajhana, there is already Upekkha, equanimity and Ekkagata, concentration, but the mind is still focused on a "material" object, as any color.

 

In the fifth jhana, the meditator discovers that there is no object, but only an infinite space, which is empty. This perception motivates the interest of claiming arupajhanas.

 

In the sixth jhana, it becomes obvious that space has no existence. There is only infinite consciousness.

 

In the seventh jhana appears the feeling that there is no consciousness, but nothingness.

 

The eighth jhana consists in the most discrete possible state of mind, which justifies the using of "neither perception nor non-perception".

 

These "explanations" do not refer to any intellectual, philosophical comprehension, which disappear since the second jhana. They attempt to figure mental process. The arūpajhānas are part of the kammatthanas, and are referred to as the four "formless states".

 

To say that thought is an illusion is true, but thought is real, just as you are real. To say that the flower is not really there is true, but it is also there. Close your eyes and the flower is still there. You smell it and feel it, even if you do not see it. That is what you're missing.

 

I am not Buddha, but I don't have to be to see that you are throwing darts at the dartboard, hoping to hit the bullseye. Stop throwing darts and forget about the bullseye. When you can do that then I think you will do much better. Buddha does not need a defender, nor does he need you, but you seem to think you need Buddha. You don't, you just think you do.

 

Aaron

 

Since you are not a Buddha, you don't really know what I need. You are not enlightened, you've just had some enlightenment experiences. You've entered into some Jhanas, that is very clear, and that's good. I wish you well in that! But, you have not finished the voyage my dear friend. You don't have omniscience, you only have some Jhana, stages of samadhi and integration with it, that is all my brother, nothing more, nothing less of course this is good. But, you my dear, do need the Buddha... he could take you deeper.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Twinner,

 

The Formless Jhanas have nothing to do with even seeing a world around you as formless, that's in the form jhanas. The formless Jhanas you experience that there never has even been a world, and there is no body perceiving, you are not even in the center of anything, perceiving outward, you don't have eye lids, it's not like sleeping, or dreamless sleep, as you are conscious, just not as a body consciousness anymore...

 

Anyway... the thoughts about a formless jhana come up later after the experience. But, while in the Jhana, one can have an intention in order to move deeper into the jhana, one can also apply insight while in the jhana that has nothing to do with conceptual formulations. Which is what Buddhist, "right view" is about. So that one doesn't inscribe seeds of theistic Self into these deeper states of formless mind where one is illuminating the unconscious.

 

None of these are God, or Enlightenment either though, even though they are deeply blissful on a level beyond body consciousness or brain chemicals.

 

Thus there is also no sense of time at all! From the perspective of the body, a minute and an entire lifetime are the same in a formless jhana.

 

How do I know this? Not because I read about it. So, don't pin that tail on this donkey.

 

Edit: By the way, from these formless jhanas is where the Buddhist theory of the Alayavijnana came from. Or the personal storehouse consciousness. Along with a whole bunch of other Mahayana theories. Beings of deep formless awareness can make deep impressions on people through this level of awareness, making them do things, or taking control of people, etc. Like many powerful Hindu yogi's do in Theistic paths to their students. They don't even really know they are doing this, as this imprint has been passed down from their Hindu Master as well. This is why Buddhist "right view" is sooo important, as it helps one get past these impressions deep in the formless realm, where the theory of D.O. must be an insight, not just a theory, but an intention... a tool that is used to untie knots within your personal formless realms in your storehouse consciousness... deep in the bliss.

 

I think it's in between the 4th and 5th Jhana that one is able to travel to other star systems or other worlds in other dimensions as explained in various Buddhist and Hindu cosmology texts. I don't recall as I've lost many of these abilities over the years... sadly. But, I know they are there and that these other realms are as real as this one. Which is why I have confidence in what I'm talking about when it comes to Buddhist cosmology.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

Hello Vaj,

 

This isn't a pissing contest. For all of your enlightened experiences, you have obviously not learned that. I don't care what you claim to experience. The master teaches through practice, not preaching. You preach too much and practice too little. Enjoy your trips to the cosmos, I will enjoy what I have here where I am.

 

Compassion is not tough love, it is easing the suffering of others. Practice the eightfold path, then come and talk to me about the Jhanas. I find it astounding that you claim all this knowledge, but practice none of what is taught. Perhaps because of your advanced state you are beyond that. Good for you.

 

The next time you feel like you are doing something you have no control over, ask yourself, where is the Buddha now? Don't confuse knowledge with practice, or religion with spirituality, they are distinctly different things. I would've hoped your absence from the forum would've granted you some insight into your actions, but regrettably it doesn't seem to have done much.

 

Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

This isn't a pissing contest. For all of your enlightened experiences, you have obviously not learned that. I don't care what you claim to experience. The master teaches through practice, not preaching. You preach too much and practice too little. Enjoy your trips to the cosmos, I will enjoy what I have here where I am.

 

Compassion is not tough love, it is easing the suffering of others. Practice the eightfold path, then come and talk to me about the Jhanas. I find it astounding that you claim all this knowledge, but practice none of what is taught. Perhaps because of your advanced state you are beyond that. Good for you.

 

The next time you feel like you are doing something you have no control over, ask yourself, where is the Buddha now? Don't confuse knowledge with practice, or religion with spirituality, they are distinctly different things. I would've hoped your absence from the forum would've granted you some insight into your actions, but regrettably it doesn't seem to have done much.

 

Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

 

 

Wow, this forum is filled with egos that blame and point fingers. I've never actually experienced this outside of this forum. Very interesting. I definitely belong with Buddhists who don't take debating views nearly as personally as you subjective monistic idealists. Yes, I've just pigeon holed you guys. I'm not in your tribe, thank merit.

 

You and plenty of others here's responses are not compassionate, they are reactions, they are responses that arise from the fear of having a position that is being challenged by what I share. I do not share in the intent to hurt you. Or to get pats on the back from you. I share to have a debate into the finer points of view granted by access to the great chakras located in the higher areas of individual potential, which I know plenty of you have access granted to. That is all.

 

There is too much personal taking here, not revealing anything other than fear and dogmatic clinging. Where at all am I not being compassionate? Where at all am I not sharing for the sake of your own upliftment? Are you only uplifted if I agree with your point of view? If I don't agree with your point of view, that must mean I am mean, angry, and full of demonic hate, right? That must mean that I am a hypocrite. Simply because I don't agree with your point of view and your fabulous level of experience here on impermanent Earth, which obviously you attach to as the end all be all.

 

If you are truly spiritual, and not religious, as I am not religious as I don't see Buddhism as a religion like you do. Then it behooves you to find out what will happen to your mind once your body ceases to function. Or are you just going to continue sticking your head into the impermanent dirt of your jhanic bliss samadhi and ignore the deeper questions about reality lurking in the further crevices of your yet to be illumined unconscious?

 

Go ahead, protect yourself again, react, blame me, call me in-compassionate, call me ignorant and caught by religion.

 

What I find interesting is when people reject something without knowing what it is. So many reject a spiritual tradition due to false concepts about it that arise due to concepts from other traditions.

 

First of all, where did you get your concept of "god" from, which you've obviously reified subconsciously through your experiences. What is this concepts anthropological history, which probably has everything to do with your past lives as well.

 

Is it in-compassionate to ask people who are supposed to be on the spiritual path to question deeper, the nature of their belief systems? Is it?

 

You don't know Buddhism, but you reject it, based upon some sort of pain associated with religion in general, it's a gloss over trick your mind is playing on you, a by-pass through mis-association of personal information. This is not reflective of enlightenment, just blissful by-pass through one of the jhanas/samadhi's.

 

The Buddha categorized these, because he saw them for what they were, thus was able to conceptualize these levels in a clear and nuanced manor, instead of just clinging to the experience as the end all be all tell all, he saw through them, completely. How is it not compassionate that I tell you so? Of course, you are reacting now, internally, instead of actually reading and understanding while you read.

 

 

Anyway...

I wish you guys well.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Vajrahridaya