Shaktipat

[Vajrahridaya]

nicely said.

 

s

 

I agree... beautiful.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for the elaboration Trunk. Much appreciated.

 

When you attend to this practice, do you occasionally get any vibrations around the heart centre by any chance? Any associated feeling, as if your heart becomes like a crystal lotus emitting endless rays of hazy white, red and blue light in the four directions? Lately this has been happening when i sit to do formal practices, and was wondering if you have, or had similar absorptions?

 

I do have this happen with the Ah tigle experience. This beautiful and brilliant radiance of "aaaaaahhhh" coming from the center of my being and this radiance fills every direction in a wondrous bliss. All the colors emanating and suffusing everywhere. In fact, it's already there, it's just my awareness falls into this space or dimension at times, sometimes during practice, or just whenever I want from memory of this spontaneous space of freedom.

 

with thousands of glowing bluish-white Mani mantras lighting it up, carrying the blessings to any being who sees it.

 

Just sharing a visualization experience here.

 

 

 

 

 

_/\_

 

Awesome! It's important not to reify this experience but go deeper into emptiness and dependent origination, experientially thus widening and deepening the field of selflessness.

[rakushun]

Vajrahridaya,

 

Is Brahman the same entity as the GOD taught by Jesus? In order words, different names for the same thing or are they different beings?

 

Thanks!

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya,

 

Is Brahman the same entity as the GOD taught by Jesus? In order words, different names for the same thing or are they different beings?

 

Thanks!

 

As far as some of the Christian mystics go... yes.

[Vajrasattva]

Brahman Olofi Allah all the same

 

Namaste

[Vajrasattva]

Free 72 hour Gobal shaktipat for spiritual awakening and for healing the Gulf Crisis & Animals & Humans Involved.

 

JULY 9 - 11.

 

Peace & God Bless

 

SD

[sifusufi]

Brahman Olofi Allah all the same

 

Namaste

 

Seen

[rakushun]

Vajrahridaya, Vajrasattva: thanks for answering.

I find comparative religion to be a very interesting topic.

Olofi is a new one to me, I'm going to have to do some google searching on it.

 

Just did some White Tara chanting last night and it was very blissful.

Vajrasattva, you should start a new thread letting people know of your shaktipat tomorrow, that way people who are not checking this thread won't miss out on it.

I'll try to tap into your generosity tomorrow.

 

Namaste friends.

[Vajrasattva]

namaste I am a bit quiet these days. Busy : ) But all is good.

 

OLOFI is SUPREME BEING in AFRICAN IFA

[Vajrasattva]

namaste I am a bit quiet these days. Busy : ) But all is good.

 

OLOFI is SUPREME BEING in AFRICAN IFA

 

 

 

one could say its the Tao itself.

[effilang]

Nobody in Europe? - Common

[Vajrahridaya]

 

one could say its the Tao itself.

 

That image except from the perspective of the being holding the star is what I've had, but during my waking up process saw endless others with that level of power and bliss coming before, after and during, thus seeing that there is no inherent being that holds this or any, throughout infinite universes made up of endless beings. Seeing dependent origination/emptiness far transcends these traditions that see a supreme source, cause, omega or alpha that is TRUE existence. I am not a universalism of subjective ideology like all Theo's of theism's are. Yes, it seems very powerful and blissful and deeply healing to one degree or another, but is not Buddhahood (awakehood).

 

The details of awakening are to be had directly through cognition of the meaning of dependent origination/emptiness, the wisdom that transcends the samadhi of neither perception nor non-perception which all other paths lean their wisdom upon.

 

Neither perception nor non-perception is already a state of realization very hard to comprehend both conceptually and experimentally. Thus dependent origination which the Buddha declared is deeper, must be quite a whopper of profundity to swallow if you are merely reading these words.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrasattva]

That image except from the perspective of the being holding the star is what I've had, but during my waking up process saw endless others with that level of power and bliss coming before, after and during, thus seeing that there is no inherent being that holds this or any, throughout infinite universes made up of endless beings. Seeing dependent origination/emptiness far transcends these traditions that see a supreme source, cause, omega or alpha that is TRUE existence. I am not a universalism of subjective ideology like all Theo's of theism's are. Yes, it seems very powerful and blissful and deeply healing to one degree or another, but is not Buddhahood (awakehood).

 

The details of awakening are to be had directly through cognition of the meaning of dependent origination/emptiness, the wisdom that transcends the samadhi of neither perception nor non-perception which all other paths lean their wisdom upon.

 

Neither perception nor non-perception is already a state of realization very hard to comprehend both conceptually and experimentally. Thus dependent origination which the Buddha declared is deeper, must be quite a whopper of profundity to swallow if you are merely reading these words.

 

 

Buddhahood stems from the Source.

[Vajrahridaya]

This subjective idealization is an obstacle.

 

To elaborate. Basically, you are taking your peak experience as a proof of a self existing essence, thus you are not seeing Buddhadharma directly, only subjectively.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddhahood stems from the Source.

 

What the Buddha stated basically is that there is no source, there is only infinite regress, and your identification with an infinite essence is an extreme the Buddha called Eternalism. This idealism of yours and so many others only leads to higher rebirth and not liberation from Samsara.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrasattva]

What the Buddha stated basically is that there is no source, there is only infinite regress, and your identification with an infinite essence is an extreme the Buddha called Eternalism. This idealism of yours and so many others only leads to higher rebirth and not liberation from Samsara.

 

 

Buddha was just one of the many Emissaries of this same never ending and with out beginning source and Truth. He taught Universal Truths. Its not "Idealism". Its just AL HAQQ or Divine Truth.

 

 

He became what many before him became as well and a few later became. There are and always was many Buddhas. He chose to teach a path to help and aid mankind. He was one of the 124000 prophets.

 

All of whom which stem from the "YA ANUR".

 

With out the "source" there is no Buddha.

 

The Buddha is just one of many who has realized a Divine Truth and Lived to be a Divine Light for others.

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddha was just one of the many Emissaries of this same never ending and with out beginning source and Truth. He taught Universal Truths. Its not "Idealism". Its just AL HAQQ or Divine Truth.

 

 

He became what many before him became as well and a few later became. There are and always was many Buddhas. He chose to teach a path to help and aid mankind. He was one of the 124000 prophets.

 

All of whom which stem from the "YA ANUR".

 

With out the "source" there is no Buddha.

 

The Buddha is just one of many who has realized a Divine Truth and Lived to be a Divine Light for others.

 

Not the Buddha nor any other Buddha teaches this. But, you are welcome to believe what you wish. The Buddha taught that what you believe leads to higher rebirth, but not liberation from samsara. Your view is a view of the Brahma paths, which is fine and good, and leads to perfection of the 4 immeasurables, but not perfection in wisdom of the way the cosmos churns.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[RiverSnake]

What the Buddha stated basically is that there is no source, there is only infinite regress, and your identification with an infinite essence is an extreme the Buddha called Eternalism. This idealism of yours and so many others only leads to higher rebirth and not liberation from Samsara.

 

 

Buddha was just one of the many Emissaries of this same never ending and with out beginning source and Truth. He taught Universal Truths. Its not "Idealism". Its just AL HAQQ or Divine Truth.

 

 

He became what many before him became as well and a few later became. There are and always was many Buddhas. He chose to teach a path to help and aid mankind. He was one of the 124000 prophets.

 

All of whom which stem from the "YA ANUR".

 

With out the "source" there is no Buddha.

 

The Buddha is just one of many who has realized a Divine Truth and Lived to be a Divine Light for others.

 

 

Not the Buddha nor any other Buddha teaches this. But, you are welcome to believe what you wish. The Buddha taught that what you believe leads to higher rebirth, but not liberation from samsara. Your view is a view of the Brahma paths, which is fine and good, and leads to perfection of the 4 immeasurables, but not perfection in wisdom of the way the cosmos churns.

 

Interesting Stuff

[Vajrasattva]

Not the Buddha nor any other Buddha teaches this. But, you are welcome to believe what you wish. The Buddha taught that what you believe leads to higher rebirth, but not liberation from samsara. Your view is a view of the Brahma paths, which is fine and good, and leads to perfection of the 4 immeasurables, but not perfection in wisdom of the way the cosmos churns.

 

 

 

You are limiting something that has no limit and its something that is you.

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is my 2 cents.

 

This is just a misunderstanding of language. I don't think the word source doesn't quite describe what either of you are describing. It could, but not the way we have learned the usage of the word "source" in our language. It's just an interpretation issue.

 

@Vajrahridaya

 

If we use the "source" to mean the interdependent matrix composed of each individual illusory formulation within the universe (like "chair" or "self" or "luminosity") arising from dependence, you can't deny that the word "source" does make sense. That we are a part of a greater interconnectivity of conditions upon conditions. That the arising manifestation of "now" comes from the "source" of infinite conditions. So it does make sense to say that all things, even the Buddha, arise from this source.

 

We can even call this God. (UH OH, I see warning signals going off in your head!!)

 

What you, I think, is objecting to is that this thing has an independent will to do something with creation, or that "He" created this in the first place. Or that it is even a "He." But what's wrong with interpreting it as the act of creation itself? So God = Creating (creation)? I'm pretty damn sure Vajrasattva does not think God as in the bearded white man in the sky.

 

When you speak of the formless bliss realm of pure consciousness (or...whatever) as not the ultimate, well, than that's just a misunderstanding of the word, or the ultimatum of God. I don't get why you don't give room to other's own interpretations of these very concepts. The context surrounding the word could be very different from your own historical understanding.

 

So in this view, we can try to accumulate our understanding of how dependence, the matrix of emptiness, of causes and conditions, of God, of harmony, of the Tao, work. This is how the Buddha preached the 12 inks, as an understanding of the process of dependence by which human life comes about. And science does this too. We can call the fundamental principe behind this a certain name. God, Love, Frog, Blah, Blah Blah, Gaga, Bada, Dependent Origination.

 

It's just a name we give to the ultimate, the truth, the way everything is. And it will be the "source" and "at-one" with our very being NO MATTER WHAT, in the conceptual uses of those very words.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

You are limiting something that has no limit and its something that is you.

Both of you are like...

 

saying...the..

 

SAME THING.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

You are limiting something that has no limit and its something that is you.

 

No, I don't see a thing that is to be unlimited in the first place. This would be a mistaken cognition or mistaken identification with an experiential proof, considering it true and real from it's own side would be a subjective idealism. This is not going to liberate you completely. You are taking a totalitarian all absorbing view of Truth as real and self standing, this is the seed of Samsaric re-becoming according to the Buddha. It's a dogma.

 

Buddhist view is truly viewless and without anchor. Thus, Buddhist definition of liberation or experiential insight into the nature of things is quite different from what you consider to be insightful.

 

Buddhism is not a oneness path and never has been. Even though... all Buddhas are one in their experiential insight, they are not one in essence.

[Sahaj Nath]

Guru Ganga-Puri (Swami-G) addressed a question today on video about how to give shaktipat properly.

 

whoever wrote to her, thinking she would teach some random person shaktipat techniques, CLEARLY hasn't been paying attention to how she rolls!

 

i thought these were worth posting, however. she offers some very valid perspective, and her answer IS the correct answer within her knowledge tradition. she couldn't give any other answer without being derelict in her responsibility as a Guru.

 

at the same time, though, whoever asked her that question should have come over here to TTB!

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

i guess what troubles me about her advice is that she ignores the fact that the person is transmitting inadvertently, anyway. how do you tell a person to NOT do something that is occurring on its own?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Hundun

[ShaktiMama]

Guru Ganga-Puri (Swami-G) addressed a question today on video about how to give shaktipat properly.

 

whoever wrote to her, thinking she would randomly teach them some correct shaktipat technique, CLEARLY hasn't been paying attention to how she rolls!

 

i thought these were worth posting, however. she offers some very valid perspective, and her answer IS the correct answer within her knowledge tradition. she couldn't give any other answer without being derelict in her responsibility as a Guru.

 

at the same time, though, whoever asked her that question should have come over here to TTB!

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

i guess what troubles me about her advice is that she ignores the fact that the person is transmitting inadvertently, anyway. how do you tell a person to NOT do something that is occurring on its own?

 

I have been rubbing shoulders with G since the late 90s on various kundalini internet groups. We have both grown up a bit. We have had a few flame wars with each other in our earlier days. Her fundamentalism about her path used to really set me off. She comes around and joins my groups every couple of years, pisses us off eventually because she is so hardline, and then she leaves usually taking a couple of members with her. She even pisses off some of our resident devout Hindus. The groups I run are eclectic and appreciate the diversity of authentic traditions.

 

She seems to have calmed down a bit as I have.

She's a hard task master so if that's how you want to roll she is good for that. She does have the juice. Now that she has developed her own following she doesn't troll for members like she used too. She lives on donations and was a bit of the missionary evangelist for her brand of Hinduism.

 

I would echo a lot she says and there are points I would diverge. Personally, I think Shakti should be shared. Shakti wants to be shared. I don't think you can stop from sharing no matter what you stage of development. Like the song we used to sing in Sunday School at church when we were very little:

 

 

Shakti is also Divine Intelligence and when your body/mind/spirit matrix is ready Shakti leaps from person to person whether in our own intelligence we think differently. It would be like the Persian ruler, Xerxes, who placed his chair at the edge of the shore and commanded the tides not to rise. It won't happen.

 

Resistance is futile.

 

It's hard enough to manage your own development without feeling responsible you have to manage others. That's what the teachers are for. So look for some to help you out with this. We are out there.

 

 

 

s

[Vajrasattva]

I agree with some stuff but not everything.

 

Shakti is an even greater teacher than Swami.

 

Shakti will flow as she pleases. a Person that can give shakti Does so whether they want to or not. Shakti is really the one that flows. Shakti gives Shakti. I can make a "suggestion" or an "appeal" but the Holy Spirit will still shine and flow as it wants to.

 

its like asking the sun to shine ONLY to one person as it shines in our sky....

 

No the SUN simply SHINES. you can either enjoy it or bare it with some sun screen. or run and hide in a dark room. Key is the SUN will always SHINE its doing what it does. And its rays will still affect who so it wishes to affect.

 

A Shaktipat Guru Always Shines regardless of what they are doing.

 

I think she is wrong about a few things. You can and should teach folks how to generate and give shakti transmission. It doesnt take 40 0r 50 years. It only takes that long if you have someone who is not guiding you Properly. Also THE FACT is SHAKTI will teach you regardless of whether you want to learn or not learn...key here is simply to say yes mommy . I prefer her loving hugs and kisses than her giant bitch slaps. Iron palm???? WTF??? Shakti is the ultimate at slapping shit to the ground if she so wishes. Also its important to understand the "road" maps and internal pathways. And a Guru should teach that and share that. And also it helps that as you develop energetically you help spread the energy more to mother earth, your community, fellow brothers & sisters and to animals. Shakti loves to go around. The more you give the more she gives you to play with. A river must flow so must an ocean.

 

 

The ocean will not and can not run out.