Shaktipat

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

 

So when someone from the West or other places for that matter speaks of obtaining certain things in meditation using the terms above you have to wonder. did they really. cause my gut says NOPE. LOL too many do say it, have said it and will continue to say it but in reality they are dabblers. oh and then they meet Babaji or whatever else. its a joke, think about it. do the TRUE enlightened ones speak that way??????????

 

 

 

To the best of my knowledge on this thread people are not talking about enlightenment, although shaktipat may, or may not be, one of the results of such.

 

As to your gut, with over your 20 years of training(your words in one post)one would think you wouldn't need something so fallible as your gut to perceive who's got some very developed abilities and as to who is full of crap.

 

There are certainly quite a few people knocking about here who have developed their perceptions to the degree that 'gut' is a thing of the past and pure knowledge of that which is, or is not, is the order of the day. And as far as those people are concerned there are not any that would say that two certain people(you didn't mention names so I won't)don't have 'it'.

 

As to dogma and tradition and people wanting to study in a more traditional way I think you will find those people will find what they are looking for. As far as I'm concerned 'waking up' more people is better than waking up less, no matter the 'waking up less' variety is more traditional. And as to whether after they have been 'woken up' they will just end up wandering around open to all kinds of inherent dangers, then I think you may find, in view of a certain two people(who's names we're not mentioning)they are there to provide guidance, you may find many who will attest to this.

[Starjumper]

As far as Shaktipat goes we have about Shaktipatted it to death. LOL there will be differences of opinion. always. can one say that they went to a supposed Guru and got touched on the head and received Shaktipat. Sure. Is it necessarily life changing or a REAL direct transmission. Not really. Shaktipat in my opinion is for an opening and awakening mainly. it serious. its a big fricken deal. in most circles its not something you get over and over and over and over again as i have read here.

 

Once is enough with real shaktipat from a real Guru.

 

Amen to that brother!

 

Bastardizing concepts is so ... so human, isn't it? ... TTC #1 speaks to that. Anyway, in a place like this you should probably put the word 'real' in bold caps.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Starjumper7

[C T]

 

Dalai Lama- Nirvana is the exalted state of Buddhism. You are an Indian Yogi, therefore expatiate briefly on it.

 

Guruji- Nirvana essentially is a term in Sanatana Dharma. Gautama Buddha himself, his parents and his ancestors all belonged to Sanatana Dharma. Whatever Buddha has expounded is all gleaned from Sanatana Dharma. Hence the term Nirvana is not exclusively Buddhist, its origin is in Sanatana Dharma. In the Sanatana Dharma scriptures which were composed a few thousand years before the advent of Buddha, the word Nirvana finds mention. Nirvana is a state of a Yogi. Vana denotes arrow or else breath. Practising diligent yogasadhana when the breathing motion is ceased, this state of cessation is Nirvana. But it should be remembered that this is not the final state of a Yogi. Although at present it is the last stage of Buddhism. After attaining Nirvana, Prana-Vibration does exist a little in the yogi. He cannot attain complete stillness even then. Later when the Yogi augmenting austere sadhana arrives at static Brahma (this is true zero vibration), his sadhana ends there. This state is termed as Nirvikalpa Samadhi or Kriya's Transcendental state. This Nirvikalpa Samadhi is much more elevated than the state of Nirvana.

 

The discourse went on as to how Buddha followed Sanatana Dharma and that nothing new came from Him. It existed before Him, existed after Him and will always exist etc.

 

what i like about it is that its not really much of a philosophical discussion, its actual practical knowledge gleaned from 50 plus years of austere meditation that Guruji practices and the Dalai Lama knew that which is why He asked Him to speak on this subject among others such as Mahavira Jain.

 

There is no 'last stage' in the Buddhist way. Those who teach so are simply abiding by respectable conventions, to suit the mentality of those who are being taught.

 

Nirvana is understood, from the Buddhist perspective, to be the conventional description for the cessation of bondage to wrong views, and it implies also (metaphorically) 'to leave the dense forest', to rise above the mind's self-built canopy. There are very precise teachings within buddhadharma that will lead one out of this 'forest of density', but once out, it does not mean one has arrived anywhere fantastic. That is all.

 

So you are right in a way - Nirvana is nothing fantastic. It is like water, seeking only the lowliest places where others despise. Maybe that is why so many miss it. On the other hand, Nirvikalpa Samadhi, now, that is an extremely exalted state. It leads to many great realms beyond mortal understanding. Lifetime upon lifetime, mountains of yogis make it their ultimate state of attainment. But at the heart of the Buddhist teachings, there is a simple reminder - Give up clinging and aversion, and the need to attain anything. Free yourself from bondage (in the mind), then when the mind is free, one can happily go about one's business - be it Chi gung, Nei gung, Shaktipat, Kundalini, Star wars, retention, all these myriad fascinations - they are all good when the mind is free first and foremost. When the mind is bound, then these same fascinations only create more clinging. That is how people remain in the wheel. Actually the wheel does not exist, but grasping, clinging and aversion brings about its existence. When the mind is understood, then one acts from a transcendent place, and whatever one practices then does not become a binding force, in actual fact, only then can all kinds of practices become forces that enhance liberation.

[Sahaj Nath]

There has been talk about the Guru thing, been talk about the differences of Buddhism and Vedas or whatever it was that Buddhism goes deeper or the Vedas were wrong i cant remember so pardon me if i got that wrong, i just dont remember since there were so many distracting posts. anyway here it goes......from an East Indian spiritual standpoint the Guru is EXTREMELY important, its because of all the fakes or even ones like Muktananda that had some power but fell from grace (plenty of dirt available on him and the current leadership) that causes the problems. that and lack of understanding and knowledge. Guru has a certain CULT theme when we here discuss it. it is only due to ignorance as a real Guru is quite different, matter of fact in the Scriptures it also speaks of the Guru being inside YOU. So by not honoring that fact, some would say you are not honoring yourself. Just a point to be taken.

 

...

 

what i like about it is that its not really much of a philosophical discussion, its actual practical knowledge gleaned from 50 plus years of austere meditation that Guruji practices and the Dalai Lama knew that which is why He asked Him to speak on this subject among others such as Mahavira Jain.

 

...

 

So when someone from the West or other places for that matter speaks of obtaining certain things in meditation using the terms above you have to wonder. did they really. cause my gut says NOPE. LOL too many do say it, have said it and will continue to say it but in reality they are dabblers. oh and then they meet Babaji or whatever else. its a joke, think about it. do the TRUE enlightened ones speak that way??????????

 

 

as i stated earlier, i think you represented yourself rather well, brother. i don't think the problem was a matter of misunderstanding, but instead a legitimate difference of opinion. that's all. personally, i think your position AND susan/santiago's position are short-sighted, but i am far more aligned with susan/santiago's perspective than i am with yours. many of your points continue to not be addressed, but even my mild criticism of susan/santi went mostly unaddressed and obscured, so that happens. *shrugs*

 

i tend to enjoy jumping in the fray, and even when i take a particular matter seriously, i almost never take it personally, so EVERYONE can feel free to tear me apart. i'll respond to arguments, but probably won't bother with immature sniping or name-calling. (which was my MAIN POINT to susan & santi, btw, NOT that all attacks should just be accepted or whatever nonsense)

 

first, let me state what feels kinda obvious to me and seems at least a little bit implied in what you wrote above. the scriptures weren't written for the already enlightened, but rather for the unenlightened. the awakened don't need rule books (except for political purposes). WE do. kinda simple, but kinda true, too. also, the notion of "falling from grace," either as a result of, or as evidenced in, abhorrent behavior, is the same short-sighted understanding that seems evident in a lot of what you've written in this thread. it hint at a mindset of "a Guru must act this way and must be recognize by these people to be legit." i get the need for standards, but it's far from absolute and often gets abused. Muktananda just happened to get caught, but his behavior is far from unique. but i'm getting a little ahead of myself.

 

i think one of the reasons precepts and doctrines are SO important is because in time you reach a state of cognition that is literally beyond good and evil, and the HOPE is that with enough PRIOR training (cuz God knows you're not gonna learn it after the fact) you will tend towards the values that were instilled in you earlier. there have ALWAYS been masters who were considered to be "on the dark side." always. masters who have raped and killed wantonly. indiscriminately. just as the masters who shine like the sun and wantonly bestow blessings. ALL phenomenon is moved by the same hand. but we like to believe in our fairy tales of good against evil, or worse yet, of good OVER evil!

 

 

and so we tend to follow the "righteous" like lambs to the slaughter...

 

hm... maybe this is a little too "out there" for this community. well, i guess we'll see.

 

 

all phenomenon is the neverending unfolding of God's self TO Herself. rape and murder (for instance) are part of the natural order of things, and the fact that we find them disagreeable (and we SHOULD, as decent people) doesn't change that. so from where i stand, Muktananda's enlightenment is in NO WAY diminished by his transgressions. nor is Osho's. or the one who put Crazy Wisdom on the map, Chogyam Trungpa. such a mundane level of moral judgment is incapable of evaluating non-rational activity from a higher state of being, yet such judgment is still necessary for the order and well-being of ordinary people in everyday life.

 

so yeah, i think much of your perspective is vitally important, and a lot of folks who aren't giving you enough credit could benefit from at least taking pause and really considering your views, but it's also very limited.

 

 

now, my issue with susan/santi is like this:

 

they are so right about so much of it that they throw out the Buddha with the bathwater. transmission of energy is easy. opening up to shakti is easy, once you understand. in fact, i would challenge anyone who has trained with them in-person to meet with me and see if my transmissions aren't AT LEAST as powerful. that's the easy stuff.

 

the importance of a truly realized master is about quality, and nuance. and most of the people in this community don't have the training or experience to judge that. most of are going from practices that did 'nothing' for them to a practice (like KAP or Kunlun) that's doing 'something.' and this is NOT to compare the systems, mind you. my issues with what is called "kunlun" has been well-documented here, and i have even sent people over to KAP because i knew they would get a lot out of it. but i've kept my distance personally. i see more than i did last year, which was more than i saw the year before, and so on. but the energies of a realized master are NOT being transmitted by Susan/Santi. i'm not saying this to be inflamatory, but yuanqi is CORRECT on this score, and it DOES make a difference. awakening the Kundalini doesn't require transmission from a realized being, but then most of the people walking around with awakened kundalini are not realized anyway, so it really does depend on what you're looking for.

 

to put Susan/Santi on the same level as a Wang Li Ping or John Chang (assuming he's legit) or other true masters (which HAS been stated in the past, and which Santi did NOT correct) is just naive and silly, and they should at least have the integrity to admit that they are not on that level (which i think would go a long way to answer yuanqi's concerns). to borrow from taomeow in a debate she and i had a month or two ago: it's like comparing a skilled surgeon to a certified message therapist. both can get your body functioning better, but there's just no comparison in their respective skill levels.

 

by susan/santi's standards, i can give shaktipat, too. and it's true. i can. sort of. some of the people on this board can attest to the strength of my energy, and i've never really let loose with anyone here! but my kundalini is flowing, and if you're sensitive you might even be able to feel it in these very words. i'm way stronger than i was 10 years ago, and i was blowing light bulbs and frying electronics back then. for most people who are largely novices in this realm, what i do is MORE than enough to accelerate their growth. in fact, i would even argue that it makes more sense to come to me in the beginning than to seek out a more traditional master-type who will make you wait a lot longer and pay a lot more for the training and the transmission that i can provide in a relatively short time, for a lot less.

 

BUT, i can only take you so far. it often feels like the top of the mountain to newcomers, BUT IT'S NOT. it's a damn good boost, and some believe it's further than they ever thought was actually possible. now, i could run with that and start offering alchemy & shaktipat courses, and would have a lot of supporters ready to vouch for my skill, but it would be a deception. some people even 'light up' just by me walking into the same room, because i'm literally overflowing at this point, but that doesn't qualify me to be on-par with true masters of the mind & spirit. there's a difference. and as someone who can do what santi and susan can do, i think it's important to acknowledge that.

 

i love their work. i think it's important and necessary for a lot of practitioners out there who don't have quality teachers in their area. and as i said, i have recommended a number of people to take KAP. and as a purely technical term, shaktipat, or transmission of shakti, does not belong to a particular tradition or culture. it's nature. it's universal.

 

but truly ALL TRANSMISSIONS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL. so if you want exercises and a transmission that will help to awaken your kundalini shakti, you don't need a realized master for that. but if your goal is true mastery or enlightenment, don't make the mental mistake of thinking that someone like susan, or santi, or even myself (oh no! my stock is dropping! ), is on that level. it's not the case. and when you haven't been around true masters, you really just don't know what you don't know. true, TRADITIONAL shaktipat requires a level of highly disciplined skill that we simply do not possess. but for the average person, people like us are about as good as it gets. i cure cancer with my bare hands, for crying out loud! that's pretty cool, right? LOL!

 

 

i hope this was fair. but i guess you guys will let me know if it wasn't.

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[altiora]

well someone mailed me and said i should go back and check out the thread i had left. I have. seriously downhill. perhaps it was my difference of opinion and my traditional mindset that might have initiated it. LOL but then again, who am I, so its doubtful.....either way

 

 

 

Don't worry yuanqi: some of us more intelligent readers understood you fully. Your views touched the nerve of those who are insecure hence the quite irrational reactions and accusations that you were some "fundamentalist".

 

Ultimately what you're on about is integrity and respect for cultural heritage.

 

Shaktipat has a specific meaning within the spiritual systems that originate from the subcontinent; it is only given by those who have the lineage authorisation to give it. Those who do not satisfy these two elements should not be using the term shaktipat. Use some other term, because you are trying to "pass off" and misappropriate what doesn't belong to you.

 

People should be honest about what they teach. It is simply not good enough to say "shaktipat" is a concept that is prevalent in all cultures, so therefore I can rightfully use that term to describe whatever I do. Call it initiation, attunement or something. But I guess they know that shaktipat sounds exotic, and has been used for thousands of years in India, so it's a great sales pitch to attract students. I challenge those who claim they do shaktipat to tell me why they can't use another term.

 

It is the same as westerners who use the term "Lama", and are not authorised by any Tibetan Buddhist school. It's wrong and disrespectful to Tibetan culture to use that term. So too the same with the term "reiki" when what you teach is completely different from Usui Sensei, and is instead something you've invented or "channelled".

 

 

 

One final thing: I connected with you about your 30 hour flight to India. I could have taken "shaktipat" by taking a 3 hour trip to Australia, but decided to take a 30 hour trip to the USA (yes, there is actually a teacher who can give Shaktipat over there).

[de_paradise]

Whacking is good too. 30 whacks is a lot of love, from the right person.

[ShaktiMama]

 

 

to put Susan/Santi on the same level as a Wang Li Ping or John Chang (assuming he's legit) or other true masters (which HAS been stated in the past, and which Santi did NOT correct) is just naive and silly, and they should at least have the integrity to admit that they are not on that level (which i think would go a long way to answer yuanqi's concerns). to borrow from taomeow in a debate she and i had a month or two ago: it's like comparing a skilled surgeon to a certified message therapist. both can get your body functioning better, but there's just no comparison in their respective skill levels.

 

 

 

When I read yangui's posts I always get the distinct impression he doesn't really read what I post because I feel accused of things I have never said. It seems he chooses words to make into flashpoints without reading the context they are in. Sound familiar? So what happens is whole posts are created around his impressions of things he assumed, creating an illusion of me of which I have never claimed or put forth.

 

I said on June 12 in this thread

 

I think it is not a good thing to call oneself a master of anything. Mastery is a life long pursuit. Walking the path of kundalini development is no different. Let other people say who you are....remain silent and let the results speak for themselves.

 

All I have ever talked about in this thread are my own personal experiences with Shakti. It seems that people who read what happens to me believe then that I am calling myself a Master or Enlightened or whatever based on what I share in my experiences. I never made those claims. People get so offended about what I say it is important for them to run to other people and tell on me. "O.M.G!!! She just keeps talking BULLSHIT" I have been almost physically attacked in person by people who get so offended by my story. Maybe we should be asking why that is instead of saying I have no right to claim mastership of which I have NEVER done.

 

What's that bumper sticker I see every now and then: "well behaved women never make history"?

 

This happens a lot so I am getting used to it. I share my experiences freely and there is always one or two ( or here 10)in the audience who start this "how can she call herself a Master... She is not enlightened....etc." I have never, ever, said I was (never have in my 20+ years) so why do people get so angry and defensive? How many times since I have been on this board for the last 6 months have people seen me post that I am not enlightened. Personally, I think enlightenment is a cultural myth. I think enlightenment is an attachment and conceit of the luxury class. Who fucking cares?

 

Tell me what you do for world service and not how bright and shiny your brain and lineages are.

 

I see the shining light of Consciousness everywhere, in Matter and Antimatter, living and dead, material and immaterial. Kundalini runs through my bones like a Living Electric River. Does that make me enlightened, a master, an enlightened master? It does not matter to me and there are plenty of people already who have decided passionately one way or another.

 

I have no secrets. I have no lineage. Everything I initially learned and still learn (95%)I know about Shakti/Divine Source/Cosmic Energy/Shiva/Consciousness comes from DIRECT EXPERIENCE. For some that is valuable and for some it is not. I still learn like this every day in my walking with Shakti/Shiva/God.

 

I am going to say things now that you can find written about me and by me anywhere. Please pay attention because I am not here to take over the world of Hindu Shaktipat and make it my own so stop being so offended and scared that I am.

 

1} I have never said ONCE since my k awoke that i am a master.

2) I have never said ONCE since my k awoke that i am enlightened.

3) I have said many, many times that no major spiritual tradition has a lock on Divine Energy, Shakti, Shiva, God, Ruah, etc. etc. etc.

4) Shaktipat is easy. No big deal.

5) Awakening Kundalini is simple. It's living with it for the rest of your life that can be difficult.

6) When I got shaktipat I did not know what it was. I did not know what the term kundalini was. I did not know what Shiva Shakti, etc was. Hinduism was/is as foreign to me as being born in India.

7) I am a mystic and I am not a spiritual technocrat who identifies with one system. Some people need that and it is OK. I don't.

 

So I could carry on this conversation but I have to work.

 

lovely, soft, shakti blessings to you all,

s

[Edward M]

Way to go Susan!! it saddens me when i see all this politics brought into the spiritual/mystical realm....it has no place here! guys leave it out, you are acting like children...no offence!

 

peace

Ed

[C T]

it saddens me when i see all this politics brought into the spiritual/mystical realm....it has no place here! guys leave it out, you are acting like children...no offence!

 

peace

Ed

Well if you are sad just stop being sad. You perceive, from where you stand, that there is politicking going on. Thats your own perception. It may only be correct from where you are at. If you look a bit higher and further, sadness will disappear. In the spiritual and mystical realms which you speak about, sadness/happiness does not truly exist. In politics, yes - the politicians are happy, and we the people are generally the sad bunch, for obvious reasons. So if you are sad, you have made this choice to remain within the 'victim' mentality. Since there are many here who prefer to overcome this sort of mentality in one way or another, the focus (your focus) could be redirected/channelled in more constructive ways. When you do that, you will stop being sad.

 

Sorry for giving the smartass impression. Actually i was writing something in agreement to Altiora's post, but decided to shift my focus instead. I remembered i have already voiced similar opinions in an earlier post.

[Edward M]

Bro, i'm not a victim of anyone, i'm not involved in this arguement. peace

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Guruji- Nirvana essentially is a term in Sanatana Dharma.

 

Sanantana Dharma was first coined in the Dharmapala as Dhammo Sanatano, which was later taken by Hindus and applied to Hinduism, calling there path Sanantana Dharma, thinking that they were teaching the same thing as Buddha Dharma. Sanantana Dharma does not become a phrase for the Hindu's until the Katha Upanishad which is written after the Buddha taught Buddhadharma and called his path the Dhammo Sanatano.

 

Gautama Buddha himself, his parents and his ancestors all belonged to Sanatana Dharma.

No they did not, they were Brahmanistic Hindus, who believed in the Vedas.

Whatever Buddha has expounded is all gleaned from Sanatana Dharma.

 

You should study Buddhism instead of getting your information from Hindu interpretations, which is kind of an absorb all religion and call it one's own with the thought that everything comes from "one God". The Buddha said he taught something that wasn't here on Earth at that time. He also said that the path of Buddhadharma existed prior but had died out and that he was just re-establishing an ancient path and the older Buddhas have been named, and they have nothing at all to do with Hinduism or the Vedas. Buddhadharma and Hinduism do not lead to the same goal.

 

Hence the term Nirvana is not exclusively Buddhist, its origin is in Sanatana Dharma.

 

The term Nibbana was first used in technical Buddhism and was not in any of the older Upanishads. The Buddha first spoke about this term and the Hindus later took it. This is anthropologically true.

 

In the Sanatana Dharma scriptures which were composed a few thousand years before the advent of Buddha, the word Nirvana finds mention.

 

This is not true. Certain Hindus keep pushing the dates of their texts back, but anthropologists and scholars don't agree. Even the Bhagavad Gita is written after the advent of the Buddha.

 

Although at present it is the last stage of Buddhism.

 

It would behoove you to study Buddhism more if you are going to make these claims with certainty. In order for a Yogi to realize full Buddhahood, they must after reaching Nirvana which is defined as extinction of worldly cravings, accumulate the full 3 kayas for the sake of teaching the Buddhadharma in endless world systems that have a condition for accepting the dharma. This is where the path of the Bodhisattva comes in, where one attains realization for the sake of all others and really puts an end to the seed of self-hood and self attachment, which keeps one spinning.

 

Hindu's consider Nirvana merging with the formless all pervasive being of Brahman, the true Self. This is basically taking the formless samadhi's as a platform for reality and the Buddha said that this is a mistake, so the Buddha in fact subverted the early Upanishads and the Vedas entirely in his teaching of Anatta or Anatman.

 

After attaining Nirvana, Prana-Vibration does exist a little in the yogi. He cannot attain complete stillness even then. Later when the Yogi augmenting austere sadhana arrives at static Brahma (this is true zero vibration), his sadhana ends there. This state is termed as Nirvikalpa Samadhi or Kriya's Transcendental state. This Nirvikalpa Samadhi is much more elevated than the state of Nirvana.

 

The Buddha and so many Buddhist yogis who realize Buddhahood afterwards completely disagree that this is even liberation. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely the 8th jhana in Buddhas teaching and is not a Self according to buddhism but merely an expansive state of consciousness beyond thought and no-thought or beyond perception and non-perception or beyond being and non-being. It is not what the Buddha even meant is Nibbana or Nirvana. He taught a subtler teaching through inter-dependent origination/emptiness. According to Buddhism, this that you describe does not even lead to true Nirvana which is merely the beginning stage of the path of a Bodhisattva.

 

The discourse went on as to how Buddha followed Sanatana Dharma and that nothing new came from Him.

 

The Buddha taught something different from what appears in the Vedas and the early Upanishads. He called the Vedas non-authoritative when it came to his teaching. Study some Buddhism and don't get your Buddhism from Hindus who haven't themselves studied Buddhism under the right guidance. Your path is described by the Buddha as Eternalism (that there exists that which shines from it's own side and which exists as a causeless cause) and falls into one of the two extremes and is not considered the middle path of inter-dependent origination/emptiness.

 

Even the Dalai Lama teaches that Brahma paths which is one that you have described, leads to higher rebirth, just as the Buddha taught, but not liberation from Samsara. Brahma paths lead to formless states and elongated states of bliss in higher realms, expanding only on the 4 Brahmaviharas; The four sublime attitudes (brahmavihāras) are a series of virtues and Buddhist meditation practices designed to cultivate those virtues. They are also known as the four "immeasurables" (Sanskrit: apramāṇa).

According to the Metta Sutta, Shākyamuni Buddha held that cultivation of the four immeasurables has the power to cause the practitioner to be re-born into a Brahma realm (which is all that you and your Guru are teaching) (Pāli: Brahmaloka). The meditator is instructed to radiate out to all beings in all directions the mental states of: 1) loving-kindness or benevolence, 2) compassion, 3) sympathetic joy, and, 4) equanimity. This same list is also found in Patañjali's Yoga Sutras (1.33), a text composed long after the beginning of Buddhism, which shows heavy Buddhist influence. These virtues are also highly regarded by Buddhists as powerful antidotes to such negative mental states (non-virtues) as avarice, anger and pride.

 

But this alone does not lead to Buddhahood.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

I went to see Santi once and when I mentioned Kunlun Posture I, he sort of mockingly dismissed it.

 

That kind of turned me off. But I still do some stuff from KAP.

 

This isn't totally relevant, but sort of in roundabout ways.

[Vajrahridaya]

There is no 'last stage' in the Buddhist way. Those who teach so are simply abiding by respectable conventions, to suit the mentality of those who are being taught.

 

Nirvana is understood, from the Buddhist perspective, to be the conventional description for the cessation of bondage to wrong views, and it implies also (metaphorically) 'to leave the dense forest', to rise above the mind's self-built canopy. There are very precise teachings within buddhadharma that will lead one out of this 'forest of density', but once out, it does not mean one has arrived anywhere fantastic. That is all.

 

So you are right in a way - Nirvana is nothing fantastic. It is like water, seeking only the lowliest places where others despise. Maybe that is why so many miss it. On the other hand, Nirvikalpa Samadhi, now, that is an extremely exalted state. It leads to many great realms beyond mortal understanding. Lifetime upon lifetime, mountains of yogis make it their ultimate state of attainment. But at the heart of the Buddhist teachings, there is a simple reminder - Give up clinging and aversion, and the need to attain anything. Free yourself from bondage (in the mind), then when the mind is free, one can happily go about one's business - be it Chi gung, Nei gung, Shaktipat, Kundalini, Star wars, retention, all these myriad fascinations - they are all good when the mind is free first and foremost. When the mind is bound, then these same fascinations only create more clinging. That is how people remain in the wheel. Actually the wheel does not exist, but grasping, clinging and aversion brings about its existence. When the mind is understood, then one acts from a transcendent place, and whatever one practices then does not become a binding force, in actual fact, only then can all kinds of practices become forces that enhance liberation.

 

Awesome CowTao! Beautifully stated! As it's spoken about in the Mahayana that Nirvana only leads to the beginning of the Bodhisattva path which culminates as full Buddhahood, which is really just the beginning of experiencing Samsara as Nirvana. Nirvana is not an absorption into a higher universal consciousness and neither is Buddhahood. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely one of the Samadhi states that is not to be taken up as a Self. Also in the mind-only school it is considered the 9th consciousness and not to be taken up as a Self, as is warned in the teachings.

 

Though, Nirvikalpa or Sahaja Samadhi as it's called when one integrates nirguna brahman with the experience of form, is a lofty goal indeed, but it could not be equated with full blown Buddhahood, but merely as a stage of developing the 4 immeasurables as well as the inner empowered state of stillness.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[markern]

Awesome CowTao! Beautifully stated! As it's spoken about in the Mahayana that Nirvana only leads to the beginning of the Bodhisattva path which culminates as full Buddhahood, which is really just the beginning of experiencing Samsara as Nirvana. Nirvana is not an absorption into a higher universal consciousness and neither is Buddhahood. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely one of the Samadhi states that is not to be taken up as a Self. Also in the mind-only school it is considered the 9th consciousness and not to be taken up as a Self, as is warned in the teachings.

 

Can you say a bit more about what Nirvikalpa Samadhi is acording to Budhism? Is it the eight jhana? Is it Nirodha Samapitti? Something else? If it is nothing more then it is irelevant and I find it puzzling that it is held as an essential attainment by some. If it is considered essential or a high state of enlightenment within a school then that would be a sign of the school not being good as it confuses nice states with enlightenment.

[yuanqi]

Sanantana Dharma was first coined in the Dharmapala as Dhammo Sanatano, which was later taken by Hindus and applied to Hinduism, calling there path Sanantana Dharma, thinking that they were teaching the same thing as Buddha Dharma. Sanantana Dharma does not become a phrase for the Hindu's until the Katha Upanishad which is written after the Buddha taught Buddhadharma and called his path the Dhammo Sanatano.

 

No they did not, they were Brahmanistic Hindus, who believed in the Vedas.

 

You should study Buddhism instead of getting your information from Hindu interpretations, which is kind of an imperialist absorb all religion and call it one's own with the thought that everything comes from "one God". The Buddha said he taught something that wasn't here on Earth at that time. He also said that the path of Buddhadharma existed prior but had died out and that he was just re-establishing an ancient path and the older Buddhas have been named, and they have nothing at all to do with Hinduism or the Vedas. Buddhadharma and Hinduism do not lead to the same goal.

 

 

 

The term Nibbana was first used in technical Buddhism and was not in any of the older Upanishads. The Buddha first spoke about this term and the Hindus later took it. This is anthropologically true.

 

 

 

This is not true. Certain Hindus keep pushing the dates of their texts back, but anthropologists and scholars don't agree. Even the Bhagavad Gita is written after the advent of the Buddha.

 

 

 

No, it is not. You really should study Buddhism more if you are going to make these claims. In order for a Yogi to realize full Buddhahood, they must after reaching Nirvana which is defined as extinction of worldly cravings, accumulate the full 3 kayas for the sake of teaching the Buddhadharma in endless world systems that have a condition for accepting the dharma. This is where the path of the Bodhisattva comes in, where one attains realization for the sake of all others and really puts an end to the seed of self-hood and self attachment, which keeps one spinning.

 

Hindu's consider Nirvana merging with the formless all pervasive being of Brahman, the true Self. This is basically taking the formless samadhi's as a platform for reality and the Buddha said that this is a mistake, so the Buddha in fact subverted the early Upanishads and the Vedas entirely in his teaching of Anatta or Anatman.

 

 

 

The Buddha and so many Buddhis yogis who realize Buddhahood afterwards completely disagree that this is even liberation. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely the 8th jhana in Buddhas teaching and is not a Self according to buddhism but merely an expansive state of consciousness beyond thought and no-thought or beyond perception and non-perception or beyond being and non-being. It is not what the Buddha even meant is Nibbana or Nirvana. He taught a subtler teaching through inter-dependent origination/emptiness. According to Buddhism, this that you describe does not even lead to true Nirvana which is merely the beginning stage of the path of a Bodhisattva.

 

 

 

Imperialist Hinduism at work there. The Buddha taught something different from what appears in the Vedas and the early Upanishads. He called the Vedas non-authoritative when it came to his teaching. Study some Buddhism and don't get your Buddhism from Hindus who haven't themselves studied Buddhism under the right guidance. Your path is described by the Buddha as Eternalism (that there exists that which shines from it's own side and which exists as a causeless cause) and falls into one of the two extremes and is not considered the middle path of inter-dependent origination/emptiness.

 

Even the Dalai Lama teaches that Brahma paths which is one that you have described, leads to higher rebirth, just as the Buddha taught, but not liberation from Samsara. Brahma paths lead to formless states and elongated states of bliss in higher realms, expanding only on the 4 Brahmaviharas; The four sublime attitudes (brahmavihāras) are a series of virtues and Buddhist meditation practices designed to cultivate those virtues. They are also known as the four "immeasurables" (Sanskrit: apramāṇa).

According to the Metta Sutta, Shākyamuni Buddha held that cultivation of the four immeasurables has the power to cause the practitioner to be re-born into a Brahma realm (which is all that you and your Guru are teaching) (Pāli: Brahmaloka). The meditator is instructed to radiate out to all beings in all directions the mental states of: 1) loving-kindness or benevolence, 2) compassion, 3) sympathetic joy, and, 4) equanimity. This same list is also found in Patañjali's Yoga Sutras (1.33), a text composed long after the beginning of Buddhism, which shows heavy Buddhist influence. These virtues are also highly regarded by Buddhists as powerful antidotes to such negative mental states (non-virtues) as avarice, anger and pride.

 

But this alone does not lead to Buddhahood.

You are misunderstanding what is meant by Sanatana Dharma. We are not just talking about what the "hindus" call themselves as their religion. you can also say that IT IS the oldest way in exisitance regardless. what i think is important is that you seem to be taking what i said literally when using the terms i did. It cant be taken this way and understood with the superficial knowledge that you are speaking of.

 

Sure NON REALIZED Buddhist will say what you say. The Dalai Lama on the other hand kept asking questions. You get me? Asking questions on all sorts of subjects. Do you realize that Sanatana Dharma can mean Karmayoga, Kriyayoga, AtmaKarma, Atmayoga, Rajayoga? That it literally means the ETERNAL religion or ETERNAL will or ETERNAL way. Some of these terms mean merging with the soul , which is Brahma and that the realized soul can be considered the Void/Buddha etc itself. Im not trying to get into some dogmatic debate. LOL i am talking about soul religion here! this should be universal since we all have souls. you have to go deeper to understand what i am saying, not cause i am realized but because it doesnt fit in the dogmatic view that you are taking.

 

Lecturing on what is available in Buddhist texts etc accomplishes nothing. You are taking philosophical knowledge and what has been written in books and using that to try to understand something that can only be understood by self realization.WHICH IS WHY I DIDNT SAY IT, MY GURU DID. And to whom, to the Dalai Lama Himself. LOL after this fact my Guru was invited to speak even more and other than the Dalai Lama was the only one to have His lectures and discourses translated for the masses there. and yeah the Buddha did say that it had died out, it happens at the cycles of certain Yugas from time to time, but its NOT REALLY extinct as it is revived by those such as Krishna, Buddha,Lahiree Mahasaya and many many others, all with slgiht twists and what works for the AGE THEY ARE IN. I actually feel what Buddha taught is very similar to Sanatana Dharma (the true one) not the one that is termed Hinduism now. I felt that way before i even chose the path i am on. i feel that most of the esoteric ideas of religions will lead to similar places.

 

 

yeah the Buddha taught something different than the Vedas. Am i saying that the VEDAS are all 100% Correct, NO, just like the Buddhist Texts are not all 100% Correct. AGAIN its the translations of the material from a superficial standpoint that is incorrect. If one is realized, and translates them based on what that person practiced that allowed them to understand fully, then this is the real truth behind the scriptures and what has been written, what the real meaning is. For instance, the Spiritual Gita is a translation of the Bhagavad Gita in the light of Kriyayoga and how it pertains to that practice and what the results are. This is what i am speaking of. This is real knowledge. Not some philosohpical discussion written by someone lacking. i am not saying all Buddhist texts are that way i am saying that if you look at the ones that were written by someone known to be fully realized then both of these books will be very similar. why because the underlying truth in both are there. this is my main point. as for your take on Nirvikalpa, it is completely wrong. Nirvikalpa is above Nirvana, but it is also a minimum requirement for some things i wont go into on here. so there is much more in all actuality. its the end of sadhana as the person practicing knows it. in Nirvana there is still dynamic vibrations although small, you can still escape the cycles of death and rebirth but it is NOT 100% complete stillness. thats all i will say about that.

 

now for a definition of Brahma which may help you comprehend a little better.

 

Brahma-the ultimate truth underlying and transcending universality, the ubiquitous reality within creation and beyond creation; void within the void;eternal statice;the unfathomable boundless profundity, this transcendent predicate is Parambrahma

 

Brahma is premanently unchangeable, it is devoid of decrease or augmentation, is ever-solemn, ever pure, always uniform; Brahma is THE STATE where there are no impediments, distant-near relationships, origination, Mergence, yet everything exists because of Brahma-existance;nothing can be present sans Brahma, existence of the whole creation depends upon Brahma-existence; Brahma is perpetually crystalline; is beyond being affected by birth-death; Brahma is where there is absence of sound, light, darkness, knowledge, ignorance, devotee, GOD, Duality; in other words where there is nothingness yet allness; where none remains to express this nothingness, such as a perpetual static state Brahma, the Primordial Cause, source or origin. Brahma is Non-Dual, Univocal.

 

This is what is meant by Brahma.

 

 

a tv producer there said something similiar about my Guru's view that atmakarma was the only truth. the producer said this is you ego.

 

my Guru smilingly said. God is one, the world is one, man is one, hence religion also is one. This one religion is the ultimate truth but the intellect required to comprehend it is absent amongst you. You yourselves are steeped in ego, so you are observing ego in my statements also.

 

that pretty much says it all. i could go on and on. but am tired yet again. LOL i know you just wont get it and its ok. it really is. some might, some wont, at this point i could really care less but at least the topic isnt on the body parts listed before.

Edited June 22, 2010 by yuanqi

[yuanqi]

Edited June 22, 2010 by yuanqi

[Raymond Wolter]

I went to see Santi once and when I mentioned Kunlun Posture I, he sort of mockingly dismissed it.

 

That kind of turned me off. But I still do some stuff from KAP.

 

This isn't totally relevant, but sort of in roundabout ways.

 

I wrote to Santiago a while ago and had the same experience. He referred to the Kunlun teacher as a fraud and told me not to waste time with it and do KAP to learn the REAL stuff. I believe many people who screwed themselves with Kunlun are now doing KAP to clean themselves, or that's how he put it. True or not, I don't know, but I did slow down on exploring the Kunlun path. I actually got to this forum looking for more details on the REAL stuff/KAP.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Starjumper]

I wrote to Santiago a while ago and had the same experience. He referred to the Kunlun teacher as a fraud and told me not to waste time with it and do KAP to learn the REAL stuff.

 

He was just telling the truth, just a teeny bit of it, and he's nicer than I am as I wouldn't consider teaching someone who practices that crap. There are different levels of 'real'.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Vajrahridaya]

It cant be taken this way and understood with the superficial knowledge that you are speaking of.

 

It is not superficial. You don't yet understand what the Buddha taught. He taught interdependent origination/emptiness. Not that all things come from one thing. The Buddha did subvert the Vedas.

 

Sure NON REALIZED Buddhist will say what you say.

 

No, it's actually what the Buddha said.

 

The Dalai Lama on the other hand kept asking questions.

 

I know what the Dalai Lama teaches. Your teachings come from Eternalism, which is not the same as inter-dependent origination. The Dalai Lama will always ask questions because he is a humble being and wouldn't mind knowing details of the Brahma path that you speak of which does not lead to Buddhahood.

 

Do you realize that Sanatana Dharma can mean Karmayoga, Kriyayoga, AtmaKarma, Atmayoga, Rajayoga?

 

Only in Hinduism, which did not exist as it does now before Buddha. All these different paths you mention are post Buddha, but still take up a Self as refuge. The Buddha did not teach this, the Vedas do. This is not superficial, it's that the end goal is different.

 

That it literally means the ETERNAL religion or ETERNAL will or ETERNAL way.

 

There is no Eternal will that shines from it's own side. Buddhism is atheistic not agnostic.

 

Some of these terms mean merging with the soul , which is Brahma and that the realized soul can be considered the Void/Buddha etc itself.

 

No, this is not the teaching of the Buddha. There is no soul ultimately speaking only relatively speaking and there is no Brahman either, this is a mistaken cognition of the formless states of samadhi which are also empty of inherent existence according to the teaching of the Buddhas. The Buddha called your path a Brahma path, which leads to higher re-births only.

 

Im not trying to get into some dogmatic debate.

 

It's not dogma, which is the constant excuse people use to not investigate deeper. It's that the Buddha actually taught a different definition of liberation than the Vedas and Vedanta. He experienced that merging with Brahman is not liberation but merely leads to formless realms or long lived god realms. Even in Hinduism, Brahma has a life span before being reabsorbed into the potential for the next cosmos as all those that believe the end all be all is a formless all pervasive essence will experience this reabsorption at the end of the cosmic eon. Even Vasisthas Yoga talks about this and doesn't understand but just calls it, "Gods will". Which is an experiential excuse according to the Buddha. It's not dogma, it's just that the cosmos works a certain way and belief in an ultimate soul does not lead to liberation according to Buddhadharma.

 

Read... 31 realms of existence and the samadhi states that lead to them.

 

Buddhist teaching is far more concise than any group of Vedantic teachings. I used to believe as you did and followed your line of thinking, until I was educated in what the Buddha actually taught and had experiences directly revealing the intuitive awareness of inter-dependent origination/emptiness which is not a void or a vast Buddha mind like Hindus always like to translate it as. Emptiness means non-inherent existence and means inter-dependent origination and that there is no such thing as a causeless cause. It's a complete paradigm shift from the one you are used to.

 

LOL i am talking about soul religion here! this should be universal since we all have souls. you have to go deeper to understand what i am saying, not cause i am realized but because it doesnt fit in the dogmatic view that you are taking.

 

Like I said... this is not so according to Buddhadharma. According to Buddha, your view is an all absorbing dogma, the universalist dogma that says all paths lead to the same goal, because in the belief in a primal cause that all things arise from. There is no primal cause in the Buddhas realization of how the cosmos cycles. It's deeply subtle and the Buddhist cosmology is much subtler than Vedic cosmology. It should be studied from it's own points of view, not re-interpreted under Hindu dogma.

 

Lecturing on what is available in Buddhist texts etc accomplishes nothing. You are taking philosophical knowledge and what has been written in books and using that to try to understand something that can only be understood by self realization.WHICH IS WHY I DIDNT SAY IT, MY GURU DID. And to whom, to the Dalai Lama Himself.

 

The Dalai Lama doesn't believe that you path leads to liberation from Samsara and never has. He will ask questions, why not? That doesn't mean he is taking up the Brahma path which he has said does not lead to liberation.

 

My understanding is only clarified by the texts of the Buddhas, but it is not bound by these texts as they speak to me of my own direct experience as well in meditation and contemplation.

 

Read what the Buddha actually taught, not what your Hindu Guru thinks and says the Buddha taught, as he is mistaken.

[Vajrahridaya]

i feel that most of the esoteric ideas of religions will lead to similar places.

 

They do not, as the place you end up originates dependent upon view, and if the view is not that of "right view", then it does not lead to true liberation according to Buddhahood. Your view is an all absorbing dogma without getting the particulars. Buddha view is much more refined. Thus is the experience and the knowledge of the nature of things much subtler.

 

These ideas you have of the Dalai Lama are off the mark. Have you actually read what he teaches?

 

 

why because the underlying truth in both are there. this is my main point. as for your take on Nirvikalpa, it is completely wrong.

 

In Buddha cosmology there is no underlying reality that exists from it's own side. This interpretation of meditative experience considered real because it seems is without thought, is a deeply subtle tendency to cling to a self, just made infinite and formless. This is not the teaching of the Buddha and misses the point of dependent origination which subverts any monist translations of cosmic experience... read...Pratityasamutpada - inter-dependent origination

 

Here is one quote from this link "Madhyamaka and Pratityasamutpada

 

See also: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Though the formulations above appear might seem to imply that pratityasamutpada is a straightforward causal model, in the hands of the Madhyamaka school, pratityasamutpada is used to demonstrate the very lack of inherent causality, in a manner that appears somewhat similar to the ideas of David Hume. Many scholars have agreed that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is one of the earliest interpretations of Buddha's teaching on paramartha originated from Pratītyasamutpāda [18][clarification needed] , [19][clarification needed].

The conclusion of the Madhyamikas is that causation, like being, must be regarded as a merely conventional truth (saṃvṛti), and that to take it as really (or essentially) existing would be both a logical error and a perceptual one, arising from ignorance and a lack of spiritual insight.

According to the analysis of Nāgārjuna, the most prominent Madhyamika, true causality depends upon the intrinsic existence of the elements of the causal process (causes and effects), which would violate the principle of anatman, but pratītyasamutpāda does not imply that the apparent participants in arising are essentially real.

Because of the interdependence of causes and effects (because a cause depends on its effect to be a cause, as effect depends on cause to be an effect), it is quite meaningless to talk about them as existing separately. However, the strict identity of cause and effect is also refuted, since if the effect were the cause, the process of origination could not have occurred. Thus both monistic (Brahma Yoga) and dualistic (most other theisms) accounts of causation are rejected.

Therefore Nāgārjuna explains that the śūnyatā (or emptiness) of causality is demonstrated by the interdependence of cause and effect, and likewise that the interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) of causality itself is demonstrated by its anatta.

In his Entry to the middle way, Candrakirti asserts, "If a cause produces its requisite effect, then, on that very account, it is a cause. If no effect is produced, then, in the absence of that, the cause does not exist."

 

So as you can see, your teacher is wrong about what he thinks the Buddha taught.

 

 

Nirvikalpa is above Nirvana, but it is also a minimum requirement for some things i wont go into on here. so there is much more in all actuality.

 

According to Buddha teaching both Nirvana and Nirvikalpa Samadhi is merely a pit stop. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a formless state that leads to formless absorption, even after death. Read the 31 planes and the explanation of the Jhanas.

 

a tv producer there said something similiar about my Guru's view that atmakarma was the only truth. the producer said this is you ego.

 

This is only considered as such if you are a Hindu, or mystical theist. Buddha saw that there was no ultimate Self. He said that taking refuge in a formless self as ultimate would only lead to re-absorption at the end of the cosmic eon, so this does not constitute liberation according to Buddhadharma. You and all your gods get reabsorbed into this infinite, formless concept of Brahman at the end of this karmic manifestation of form into the potentiality for the next cosmic eon. This subtle attachment to a blissful formless light as a Self of all is a deeply subtle tendency of the ego. The Buddhas bliss is subtler and the realization is subtler.

 

my Guru smilingly said. God is one, the world is one, man is one, hence religion also is one.

 

This is a common Hindu dogma. According to Buddhism, there is not a one that all things come from, that potentiality which springs this cosmos is just the concepts that are left over from the previous cosmos. Actually all sorts of universes are going on and when a group of mass of sentient beings agree on a single entity as the entity of all, and their karmas align, so does the end of their manifest karmas end at the same time and they are all at the same time re-absorbed into their formless samadhi to be ignorantly re-expressed when the conditions are right. Read Buddhist cosmology for more detailed explanation. Being introduced to a new interpretation may open up new vistas of meditative experience, which is more conditioned by your view than you are aware of right now. Myriad Worlds is a good one.

 

This one religion is the ultimate truth but the intellect required to comprehend it is absent amongst you. You yourselves are steeped in ego, so you are observing ego in my statements also.

 

Actually no. I understand your understanding quite deeply, as I also interpreted my deep meditative experiences through the view that you have. I was raised Hindu my entire life with Advaita Vedanta and Shaivism as the path I practiced very earnestly. My experience of Shaktipat at 14 was that of the formless state of samadhi, beyond time and form, but fully conscious on a deeply peaceful level. When I came out of this timeless space, I saw and felt connected to everyone and experienced everyones greatness beyond their masks. But, this is just an expansive state of consciousness known of in the formless samadhi and explained by the Muni. It is good to cultivate, but not to take up as an ultimate Self of all, as the truth is much subtler than this. The truth that Buddha revealed is that there is no underlying inherently existing Truth of the entire cosmos. Just that all states of being are impermanent and that all is connected, but not that everything is of one substance. It's an entirely different way of viewing that will be hard for you to comprehend at first due to being conditioned very strongly by Hindu dogmas. Inter-dependent origination is a much subtler realization that empties this clinging to ones formless experience as a Self of all. It is a worthy state of experience because one understands connectivity better, but one also must be trained in "right view". As the Buddha said, those that take up meditation as the path without "right view" are merely conditioned by their states of meditation. This is what happens in Brahma paths.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Brahma-the ultimate truth underlying and transcending universality, the ubiquitous reality within creation and beyond creation; void within the void;eternal statice;the unfathomable boundless profundity, this transcendent predicate is Parambrahma

 

Brahma is premanently unchangeable, it is devoid of decrease or augmentation, is ever-solemn, ever pure, always uniform; Brahma is THE STATE where there are no impediments, distant-near relationships, origination, Mergence, yet everything exists because of Brahma-existance;nothing can be present sans Brahma, existence of the whole creation depends upon Brahma-existence; Brahma is perpetually crystalline; is beyond being affected by birth-death; Brahma is where there is absence of sound, light, darkness, knowledge, ignorance, devotee, GOD, Duality; in other words where there is nothingness yet allness; where none remains to express this nothingness, such as a perpetual static state Brahma, the Primordial Cause, source or origin. Brahma is Non-Dual, Univocal.

 

This is what is meant by Brahma.

 

 

This is exactly what the Buddha said does not lead to liberation from Samsara, but just higher rebirth and finally re-absorption into the formless in order to be recycled again ignorantly.

 

What you have described is called Monist Eternalism, or Monism. This is different from what the Buddha teaches and is not considered the truth that leads to liberation, only the truth that leads to more recycling. What you describe is a lofty state, but it's considered a mis-cognition and mis-interpretation of the nature of things if considered an ultimate truth in and of itself. It is merely a relative truth originated upon an identification with a formless state of samadhi.