ilumairen

:starts a fire and joyfully tosses sandals and cloak upon it: Seems our effortless feline wishes a dance of “naked awareness.”

Generally for me it is much simpler than all this. Dharmakaya is the base where "one taste" is the experience. From this base Sambhogakaya "emanates" as skillful action. They aren't quite so differentiated as this appears in words, but words are what we have here. When I don't connect with Dharmakaya (in an aware fashion) there is still action, although it tends towards a more ego centric manifestation, and can be decidedly less skillful and more stumbling. My practice has not been towards a goal of self liberation or to become something "more" for the sake of either this liberation or this more, but to be better able to "skillfully" respond to the suffering which arises around me. Any ideas of Nirmanakaya I generally leave be - unexpressed, and best left this way for me. And now I'll bow out of this interesting discussion, but will continue to read. Warm regards and best wishes.

When I mentioned the "guiding spirit within" in catechism as a teenager, there were a few questions and much dismissal (along with a fair bit of derision). You see, the bible says Lucifer was a being of light, and how would I know if the "whisper" in my heart (only noticable when "I" didn't get to "loud" and in the way) wasn't the beguiling voice of the morning star himself. Up until this point, I believed everyone had such an inner spark, and they were just sometimes to loud to hear it. Then I realized nobody in that room knew (or had experience with) what I was referring to - including those entrusted to teach and guide me. Instead of looking within, I was instructed to let that go and follow the written word of God as presented in the bible. (I was to trust in the experience and sharing of long dead men, but not my own.) Years later I was invited to lunch with a friend and a Catholic priest who was a long time friend of my friend's family, and who had watched me grow up. He was curious why I no longer attended mass, and I shared the story above with him. He asked a few more questions, and then explained to me that I was a mystic, and there were still places within the church where this was accepted and nurtured - although not in the midwest town or it's surroundings where I had grown up and was presently living... In direct answer to the question you posed and I quoted above, self-doubt is taught and expected. Anyway, I'm rambling again..

Why, whenever I think to walk away from this nonsense does somebody come along with a pretense of "sensibleness" and present oversimplifications which seem to completely exonerate HWSNBN from any responsibility? And why does it matter to me? Back to "wizard's first rule", and the notion people will generally believe what they want to believe, or what they fear to be true. He's gone. And there are still people struggling with what arose through interaction. If you aren't one of those people - great. And on some level I can kinda understand one's wish to defend and exonerate. But this leaves the people who are struggling in the dirt, and to me, lends to a sense of walking right over the top of them. And honestly, the idea of protections in this situation may not be what it appears upon first glance, as HWSNBN often spoke against such protections and anyone taking his teachings/practices/experiments seriously would most likely have let such protections (or the idea of them) go. Needing/wanting/believing in protection is presented as a manifestation of fear, and this fear is frowned upon, and considered to show lack of openness, awareness and realization. As for not having a "strong and healthy constitution" those who this argument would most apply to have generally either self-silenced or been silenced, and, imo, should not have been "toyed with" in the first place. Although the interactions were generally presented as having a possibility to help, to me there were generally indications the interactions would be further destabilizing and as such not helpful at all. I often wondered why this could not be seen, and addressed this both privately and publicly (with both HWSNBN and other members of the group) - always to have my concerns dismissed. Many times with the idea, "the sage leaves no one behind" or (he does it) "because he can". Neither of which actually addressed my concerns. Which are rather moot at this time and in this place - until posts such as the above are presented.

Why would Christ be embarrassed? And why are you diminishing yourself?

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/gospel-of-thomas He said "properly read," and I could argue most have not properly read it - if there even is a proper way to read it (aside from recognizing the ramblings and personal revelations of a dying and likely somewhat mad man - which has provided fertile soil for countless fictionalized tales of a battle between light and darkness). As an aside while I ventured the halls of my own madness (what I call my period of [the unintentional] unraveling of constructs) there was a night of vivid dreams which led to a day or two where I had a sense of understanding armageddon in a very personal sense.. this eventually faded to a recognized cultural undertone in my understanding (should I wish to use this framework to share ideas or experiences with others - which I generally don't.) In any case, I personally (closely) know two Christians who experienced what some here would label kundalini through prayer, and for a time I was quite interested in the tales of Teresa of Avila, although I came to suspect some of her later experiences were owing to a focus outside of herself, instead of inward, and were similar to a "wind disorder." And this is enough rambling for now. Take care Nungali; I'm glad you are back.

Curious if these months later the thoughts have settled? And have you continued your practices?

What eloquent nihilism. You do have a gift with flowing words - even if they express what comes across to me as a very deep melancholy. Do you write for yourself, such as journaling?

My habit was, "I don't care," and leaving whatever I didn't care about alone. Which makes me somewhat sympathetic to the questions of this thread.

For me some of the various individuals had tones or vibratory sensations which were generally associated with them. Some others here have shown up in my awareness in similar manner. And while my experience would generally indicate something regarding them which was at the periphery of my conscious awareness, more than being about them it was about me, and what was of consequence for my own understanding and personal growth. Regarding @cheya specifically, to me she is alright and not an issue in any regard, no matter who she may associate with. This was (for a time) an explanation HWSNBN had regarding the individuals who took issue with him. There was some entity attached to a certain chakra - which always struck me as odd considering the ongoing denial of any astral sight. And before anyone assumes anything regarding my sharing, there is a reason HWSNBN never questioned my sharing whatever I did, and this is because he had given me express and direct permission to share anything I wished with anyone I wished. As weird as this may sound, I believe the "horniness" is a physiological recognition of, and mind map for, a very deep hunger. Your attention feeds it. And what you've saved on your computer, imo, seems to reinstate your personal connections. So, while there may be myriad other options available to you, I presently see two primary options. You could follow (in some regard) what @Apech posted above. (I would suggest a Ngondro, although I don't believe it is your personal path.) Or you could clean your computer, get rid of anything which instigates a connection, and adjust your focus. And maybe a third option, just tell whatever is bothering you to go away, you are not interested, and they are not welcome. You are sovereign, and the "ruler" of your domain. I've honestly used all of the above at different times - dependent upon circumstances.

Including your own, so it struck me as just the projection you mentioned when you called others pathetic for throwing stones. Now please return to leaving me, and my postings here, alone.

Pot meet kettle.

This is taking an interesting turn and direction, however it kind of sidesteps the point of spiritual leaders backsliding, and/or abusing their power and authority for personal gratification of base desires - regardless of potential harm to others. The cultural significance and authority of the Catholic church has significantly eroded over the years, and I don't understand why you believe a population which decries sexually predatory behavior of it's own holy men would/should/or even could (without creating an internal dissonance) hold the holy men of a different culture to a lesser standard. I'm about out of time for now, and while I find cross cultural dynamics, assimilations, and yes, destructions, an interesting topic, it is entirely to complex and deep for the few remaining moments I have today, and possibly to fruitfully discuss at all in this setting.

If your happiness is dependent upon the other person changing their behavior, this would still be circumstantial happiness, and not what the teachings refer to. As for speaking about issues, it is suggested one connects with the openness of their own heart, and if from this place there is still something to be said, it be presented without expectation. Perhaps when you sense a bit of manic-ness to your behavior, or when you sense you're uncentered and no longer responding, but reacting?

Wouldn't this be a happiness still dependent on circumstances, situations, and objects? And aren't the teachings referring to something deeper - a non-dependent joy which is ever present regardless of curcumstance? You've described well the subtle (or not so subtle) manic nature of grasping at things to achieve happiness.

First, there are far more westerners than gurus, so I would honestly hope what you describe would be the case. Second, you'll see the same dynamic regarding Catholic priests, although similarly the majority of them do not exhibit the behavior which causes backlash against the idea of spiritual authority - which brings your theory regarding cultural destruction focused on India, and the sacred guru/student relationship into question imo.

Just as such a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of accusations of misconduct displays a different (although quite similar) cultural bias.

Actually it was initially the source which was discredited, thereby rendering the content not only unworthy of discussion, but also questionable on this site which is rather firm regarding right wing conspiracy theories. Do you dispute the source panders to right wing conspiracy theories?

Ok.. First, things will change. Second, you're actions or non-actions of your present moment will likely affect what manifests in future moments. Just as past action and non-action effected present moment. Third, acceptance enables action more appropriate to whatever arises; it doesn't actually negate action - although non-action may come to be realized as appropriate response. When these are brought together, it kinda lays out a formula and understanding of a tantric type path - where we intentionally act to bring about change, such as "poison to medicine." It is a refining process ime, and is said to create "good karma" - which is still karma, but is more like the amending of soil and pulling of weeds which enables a garden to flourish. At this point, while one may intellectually have an idea of acceptance, and may even have some experience of it in practice, the soil isn't quite ready to spring forth in a luscious garden without some effort, so we "do." We pull weeds, amend soil, plant seeds. And when the seeds we carefully and attentively planted have sprouted, grown, and are bearing fruit we've nurtured the space of acceptances - where "nothing is to be done, and nothing is left undone." And where spontaneity, instead of habitation, naturally arises. Although intellectually I have some question regarding the last sentence, as anything I verbally share is dependent upon the habitation of a learned language, and the rhythmic use of such I've personally developed over the years. For me, any time words come into play it is the expression of an ego (although not necessarily in the negative sense it is often used). And to jump back to your question after so much rambling: Accepting things as they are actually makes change easier to bring about, should change be desired. Accepting my stomach is growling and hungry, doesn't indicate a need to starve myself in the name of "acceptance." I accept hunger, and then go to the kitchen and make something to eat.

Regarding bullshit.. This was written: Response: Clarification: It wasn't replying to someone you often engage with which was considered the bs, but what Earl Grey wrote about the OP was. Hope this helps clear the confusion regarding my princess bride joke.

See, here is the thing, until today I hadn't realized I was carrying expectations about you. And now we (me and my expectations) are sitting in the refuge, allowing them to take their course and dissipate as the mirage they were. Warm regards, and thanks for the unintentional lesson.

Could you reread what the OP wrote, in place of yourself put some actor on a stage, and tell me what you get out of it then? IMO he showed disdain for being talked about while he was right there trying to talk with you. This seems to me a rather common thing for humans to be disdainful of. It was a bit of a joke (princess bride style). As far as I can see he just fumbles a bit more with his defensiveness, and isn't quite so polished. :sets out scoop of ice cream: I'm presently finding this more humorous than I probably should, so I'll bow out now, take or leave whatever you wish.

Adding this for context for my previous post. I don't think what you presented as the perceived "b.s.", was the actually perceived b.s. (Should be read in an Inigo Montoya accent.)

As written. It was the individual being discussed, and not the weather, or a soup recipe, or whatever mundane everyday thing we wish to put here. Being talked about when an effort has been made to engage in conversation is unsettling to many people, and I can only assume it would be all the more so when the side discussion about the individual who thought they were having a conversation with you was started by someone that they already feel defensive towards.

@C T I'm speaking with you as an advanced practioner, and someone I had assumed would be able to set their own defensiveness aside to try to understand another. I saw, and understood your intent, but it seems (owing to already manifesting defensiveness) the OP may not have. Could this understanding serve as some sort of bridge for more fruitful communication? I do tend towards directness and abruptness, and would certainly accept your pointing this out btw. In keeping with this directness, we seem to have become far to defensive as a whole on this board, and personally I'm exploring this apparent dynamic. (And I'd really like it if you joined me, but am giving what were apparently undue expectations regarding you on my part some space to naturally dissipate.)