goldisheavy

Actually the Rainbow body makes it easier for a Buddha to interact with those without the merit to communicate with Buddhas in the Sambhogakaya. Also, just because one has attained the Rainbow Body, doesn't mean one can't still project incarnations of enlightened physical activity, such is the case with Norbu.

Your state of mind influences the types of realms you can readily experience. Because I don't exist as an inherently real object, each being who interacts with me perceives an ever-so-slightly different version of me. None of those versions are the real me and none of them are not me. Instead all those versions of me are valid for those who interact with them. This is a consequence of multiple mindstreams and beings not being objective.

Beings are neither real nor not real, this goes with my lineages.

Beings are real in the sense that they are experienced. Beings are unreal in the sense that the ignorant conclusions about them are wrong.

Your confidence is entirely inborn, without support from true Master Buddhas who have gone before you, thus it's more like a mirage that you tell yourself is reflective of total realization without actually having it.

Everything you say about my confidence is also true about your confidence.

You need guidance, you don't really know what's up, but you're just too chicken to bow to a real Master in utter self offering humility.

A person tells you, "I am not hungry." You say, "No brother, you are hungry, I know you better than you know yourself." Do you know what this is? It's both ignorance and arrogance. It means you've picked up a burden that isn't yours.

Sure, you have insight, but not Buddhahood, nor are you qualified enough to teach what you haven't received,

Let's flip this around. Various masters around the world are not qualified to teach things I haven't transmitted to them. It's more valid to say it this way. Contemplate this.

such as Dzogchen or Mahamudra teachings. This is where you faulted and this is where you do a great disservice. Telling people to listen to you over going to a genuine Master with lineage that has actually attained the Rainbow Body, with practices that actually work for it's realization of complete Buddhahood and physical integration.

I don't tell people to listen to me over someone else. I tell people to question everyone equally. I've corrected you on this many times, but you persist in this folly. There is no need to keep lying to people Vajra.

So you claim to be a Master without the credentials, basically.

That's correct. I am not conventionally recognized as a master. I could join a lineage, rise through the ranks, and attain conventional recognition, but I see no point in it. It wouldn't be for my benefit. It would only be to fool others into following me slavishly. So it wouldn't be for the benefit of others. Since me joining a lineage benefits no one at all, not me and not others, I don't join.

No that's not what I meant. I meant thinking. Does thinking see thinking? Does sound hear sound? That would mean sound is aware. (You would blast music and awareness would drift as the soundwaves) Or mental processes are aware in themselves. Where does a thought begin and end? You would be all these chopped up awarenesses and have no connection between tasting and hearing. No memory would be established or a sense of being.

 

You may conclude that from such reasoning that objectifies that moment of thought to itself, and go, "look, there is just these disparate moments of thought, me moving, jus things arising spontaneously." And the critical juncture during this inquiry is the realization that that very thought ("look, there is just these disparate...") itself is also another rising. And one falsely thinks this is the nature of reality when really you are just impersonally experiencing things as they rise because they are objectified. This is what you call "no-self realization."

 

This is just another way of experiencing reality and I have no problem with that. It's spontaneous and liberating, a great way to practice and let go of grasping for me/mine mental habits.

 

But the Buddhadharma says the objects are empty also. So you inquire into thoughts, movement, phenomena, and conclude there are no inherent separation or identity to them. However, here you are missing a critical flaw in the process, because in order to investigate various arisings, they must be contained, connected, or somehow perceived in their totality. You are stepping out of the "just this arising" understanding in order to see the relationship between multiple arisings. And to justify this process, you say afterwards, "oh, that was just another arising." There is no such thing as "just arising" inquiry. Inquiry demands connection, division, multiplicity, memory, reflection. It is a fluid process.

 

So it's like you have a loop of justification. So you come to a nonsensical conclusion that, well, it's just like magic. As a crude example this is like a man looking for his eyes and seeing objects and not his eyes concludes that objects "see" themselves. And to see whether objects really exist or not, he closes his eye and sees darkness. So he concludes objects are not really there either. He doesn't understand that this whole thing just happens in his seeing-nature and denies his seeing entirely.

 

You can deny everything in the world, but not awareness. Because that final denial happens in awareness. Nor does it make sense to say awareness belongs to arising of disparate moments. Not does it make sense to say one can directly know that awareness comes from something else (that can only be speculated as scientists attribute it to the brain).

 

You can say awareness dependently originates, but only in the sense that a ball bounces. The fact that the ball bounces does not deny the ball. That would be stupid. Dependent origination is just how this dimension of awareness works.

This is a brilliant explanation. Many bows to you Lucky.

Otis, I get really confused by what you are saying. What the hell are you plugging yourself into, and why do you believe that you need to, and what are you in the case when you are not plugged in then? Dead?

 

 

 

Nonono, your belief in a separate presence is what's making you THINK that it's not taking place, when in reality it's always here. Look at whatever you think is keeping you separate.

 

The ego only appears to exist because it identifies with things that actually do exist. For example the body:

There is a body (fact) - This is my body (Ego claiminig ownership)

 

This is not just a game of words. You say that 'you' are body, when in reality there is just this human piece of flesh and bones. Tell me, is there somebody making your heart beat? Or a thinker that thinks your thoughts? Where is this you that you claim your body to be?

 

Some things actually exist, while others don't. All thoughts are just symbols. Symbols pointing to something other than themselves. All thoughts are false. Every thought you think is false.

Your entire post is false according to you.

More relatively real than your truck load of manure.

OK, fine. Your manure smells better than my manure and you have more of it as well. But it is still manure.

How can nothing be physical?

Because thinking that phenomena are physical is an error in judgement.

Nothing is nothing. But, I know what you mean. Everything is physical, and everything is also not physical as well. Simultaneousness!

Nope. That's not what I mean. There is nothing physical. For example, this computer I am typing on is a vision, a dream. It's not physical. It's not made of actual atoms. It's made of dream atoms. Etc.

No.

 

Yes. A famous one, post attainment.

What have you seen exactly?

I don't say rigpa is physical, I'm saying it includes the physical,

Rigpa includes the physical in the same sense that rigpa includes marigpa. It also includes the physical in the same sense that rabbits include antlers, clouds include mushrooms and blind people include visions of rainbows.

if you would have actually read what I stated instead of assumed anything like you have above. You really don't know me, nor the depth of my realization. You are quite ignorant to me dear brother, you need help. Genuine help. I've seen far more than you can realize right now based upon the lack of your vision.

When people need help, they ask for it. If you go around offering help to those who don't want it, then it is you who needs help.

It's hypocritical to criticize lineages that have actually attained something you have no idea about, and say that you can teach the same.

Except I do have an idea about their attainments. I know what they have attained.

You are a baboon, swinging from a tree, thinking he has in his hand something more than a tree trunk.

This is why lineages are bad. Your behavior is proof positive that lineages offer no benefit.

Actually one of the pre-requisites for attaining the jalus is for the sake of all sentient beings.

If you believe this, you've been mislead. Mostly it's a trick (skillful means) to make letting go of humanity easier. If you think you're letting go of humanity for the sake of humanity, it's easier to do it when you come from the position of having previously loved humanity a great deal. Once your experience conforms to the rainbow body, you'll not likely appear among real humans again (unless of course you give up your rainbow body attainment).

No, what I meant was that the reasons for my confidence is due to lineage beyond myself.

Wrong. Your confidence is completely inborn, but you are externalizing it in a projection right now. In other words, you fail to take responsibility for your confidence. You think your confidence is inspired by something externally real, something to which it is OK to cling, something that's OK to be sentimental about, and so on. You believe this gives you all the necessary justifications to be confident.

The realizations of those that have come before me that I can depend upon to help guide me, both through practice and conceptual elaboration.

You don't need guidance. You already know what's up. You're just a chicken.

It was a metaphor. While your confidence comes only from your own private bag of blind tricks you tell yourself is truth. You look at a master, and criticize without direct insight. Damning that which offers you help.

I do have direct insight and you know it. Masters offer bondage and not help.

Nah... I know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand do not. You stand alone, not supported by the mahasiddhas that have come before you even considered spirituality.

I don't know if it's accurate to say that I stand completely alone, but I *can* stand alone when necessary, including right now. Mahasiddhas are just so much baggage and spiritual flash.

Sure, if acted on without wisdom.

 

 

 

 

This right here magnifies for me the assumptive quality in your intellectual musings. I don't have to defend my teachers. They have enough enlightened students and real teachings going around with far more merit in this moment than you could muster in your whole life thus far. I do just want to offer a different perspective from your own as you cause harm steering people away from true lineages and real techniques beyond this intellectual concept pushing that you do. But, I do try to help you get over yourself, but as you might be too far gone, at least some others can read these refutations of your self proclaimed nonsense and get something from them.

Don't you know the difference between refutation and insult? You're shooting blanks, Bob.

Please if you want to really learn how to manifest the body of light and if you really want to learn about Rigpa people. Go to true masters like this... Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche Who's two direct teachers attain the Jalus (body of light) as genuine proof of the validity of his teaching lineage. Steer away from new age lineage damning pundits like GIH if you want something more than a nice discussion online.

Cool. You agree talking with me is nice. Very good.

You should go study with a real living Master, a master from lineage with teachers who've actually attained the Jalus, talk to them directly and see what they say about all this intellectual rummaging.

We can do this the other way around. Have all your so-called "masters" come to me and see what I have to say about all their posturing, anti-intellectualism and secret-keeping.

It must be integrated into every nuance of one's personal being through visualizations, which may arise spontaneously that illumine the unconscious and the subconscious and physical movements that integrate and ground it's reflection through the physical cells.

Nonsense.

Ok, who are your Buddhist teachers then? You just read some books and gained some knowledge, thinking you've mastered the perspective?

You're trying to situate me within the framework of Buddhism. You're failing. The reason for your repeated failure is that my wisdom is my own and I like Buddhism not because I learn from it, but only because it most closely resembles my own innate wisdom. Do you understand?

You have dear fellow. You poor, poor soul.

 

So, your lineage of personally ascertained information and your lineage of personal experience has illumined that fact for us, has it? You poor deluded fellow.

 

 

Wow, how deluded you are by personal pride. It's quite sad. You do have such potential though.

 

 

 

Intellectual musings.

Boring.

Ok, you don't like "come from."

 

So would you say that there is an "intender" (something which is doing the intending) and an "intent"? Can these be separated?

There are people. You are a person. As a person you experience intentionality in a way that's different from me as a person. Whether or not you are able to see an "intender" within your person is a function of your intent. If you like you don't even have to be a person, but since I am talking to you, you most likely consider yourself to be a person. Finding an intender within your person or failure to find an intender are both imaginary intentional experiences.

I have a hard time understanding many of your posts. Your consistent obscurantism ("it's not quite this...it's not quite that") makes it difficult to figure out what you are talking about; to pick out the point you are trying to make.

There is a reason for this. You're trying to get at something which is not obvious and which resists crass categorization efforts. You lean toward simplistic caricatures and simplifications of truth, and that's unfortunate.

When you say that "all things in the field of awareness are manifestations of your intent" you are supposing something which is in control. It is controlling the contents of this field. My experience has led me to believe the opposite.

The one who is supposing such things is you and not me. You're the one who always tries to insert words into my mouth. In large part that's the reason for my so-called "obscurantism."

You stated with a sense of absolutism, "Your masters are fakes" So, I regret to inform you that you came across as a fake in that moment.

When you think I am fake, there is no danger at all. Danger only arises when you think other masters are real.

That's not Rigpa. Rigpa is also physical.

Rigpa is not physical. Nothing is physical.

While diminishing true lineages with actual people who have actually attained the Rainbow Body?

You are taking these things on faith, are you not? Have you been in the presence of someone who has attained rainbow body? No, you have not. Why can I be so certain? Because you don't have the necessary intentionality and mindset to meet such a master. For example you believe rigpa is physical. Secondly you don't understand the mirage-like nature of lineages and you cling to them as if they were your body. In this sentimental state of mind there is very little chance for you to encounter a magical phenomenon like a rainbow body.

But I'll tell you some good news. You are obsessed with the rainbow body, so you are likely to attain it at some future point. You seem to genuinely want to experience having a rainbow body. As you probably know, you can't attain a rainbow body if you don't think it's impressive or interesting or otherwise worth experiencing.

Thus, you are just barking here, self protecting and not actualizing anything of what you've said. What students of your lineage of expression have attained the Jalus?

I don't have a lineage. I just discuss what I know and if someone learns something, good. If not, that's good too. Don't you think it would be hypocritical of me to criticize lineages and then to have one of my own?

The ability to transmit Rigpa and the practices that help mantain this level of insightful awareness.

I am a master then. I can point out rigpa. In fact I am pointing it out all this time in this thread.

As for maintaining rigpa, once you see it, it maintains itself. It's like once you know that the sky is above and the ground is below, you don't need to do a practice to make sure the sky remains above the ground. It would be completely contrary to the realization of rigpa to try to maintain it. In rigpa all things are maintained naturally. In other words, rigpa maintains everything, including you as an object of perception and your world. It would be preposterous to try to maintain it. So rigpa as primordial awareness is like this.

But rigpa as knowledge or insight is maintained by simply remembering the knowledge. If you remember the knowledge from time to time, you won't forget it. If you understand the importance of knowledge and the consequence of forgetting it, there is very little chance you'll forget it, because you will most likely think that if you remember one thing in your whole life, rigpa will be that one thing to remember.

You spend much time speaking from a conceptual point of view that is best defined through the Buddhadharma, while never actually having delved into it's practice

That's false.

through genuine lineage.

All lineages are false. None are genuine. You have been deceived.

You consider yourself to be a Master of it's essential wisdom,

Wrong. I consider myself to be the master of my own wisdom, which I also believe is beneficial to many other people. When I teach people I tell them: you too be a master of your own wisdom! I don't think my wisdom belongs to any lineage. In fact, the situation is the reverse. Various lineages have usurped wisdom which is mine in the first place. I have reclaimed my wisdom and crushed all the lineages who have presumed to make my wisdom secret contrary to my wishes. The secret-keeping and/or exclusivist lineages are thieves who have no place in my field of awareness.

without regard for it's genuine practices of Mantra, Mudra, Visualization and Yoga. Since you are without disciples, you should be able to attain the rainbow body at your time of death if you are such a master of the mysteries as exposed by Dzogchen but without it's living lineage, none the less.

The main requirements for attaining the rainbow body are as follows:

1. One must understand the nature of mind, including the non-physical nature of all appearances, habits, beliefs, intentionality, and so on.

2. One must be willing to let go of being an ordinary human. In some sense a person manifesting a rainbow body is a nonhuman person.

3. To the extent the relinquishment of the human identity is necessary, one must also relinquish humanity as a whole. Being sentimental about humanity on the whole while thinking one has let go of one's identity as a human in personal terms is a great folly. Being human means nothing without humanity as the context.

If you have these 3 prerequisites, you have to practice various ways to loosen up mental habits of rigidity. I can give such practices, but I usually do not, because if you understand all there is to know about mind, you'll know what these practices are without having to hear of them from me. Still, we can discuss these if there is interest, but these kinds of practices are crazy from the ordinary point of view.

Having students makes no difference. Being near death makes no difference except it helps one to be more sincere in letting loose. Someone who is not near death still has doubts unless the person is exceptional. Exceptional people don't have to wait to die to realize rainbow body.

If you stay trapped in critical thinking, you're lost buddy.

On the contrary. Critical thinking is what eventually melts all the rigid and fallacious conceptual structures. Without critical thinking you lack the tools to do the heavy lifting required to realize the rainbow body.

It's a safe arrogance that's better than your self arisen arrogance. At least the reasons for my arrogance are beyond myself. One cannot say the same about your arrogance.

The reasons for your arrogance are not beyond yourself. You are responsible for your arrogance, but like a child you refuse to take responsibility.

Sure, and this is where critical thinking can be good, but where critical thinking can be bad is when one is just critical without thinking about it's bitter causes from within.

 

Lineage also holds secret various teachings and methods in order to maintain the purity of these teachings and practices so that they don't get abused by people who are just not ready for these methods, and people who would actually be harmed by applying these practices.

This is 99.9% bullshit. I'll grant you 0.1% truth for that claim.

Like Vajrayana Yantra Yoga practices, should really be learned directly from a master, otherwise these practices can lead to harm.

Anything can lead to harm. Even inaction can lead to harm. Good intentions can lead to harm sometimes.

Also, Highest Yoga Tantra karmamudra practices should be learned from a master in order that they don't get polluted, like they have already in neo-tantra groups that just use it for the sake of elongated sexual satisfaction.

 

Again, you take the negative road, I'll take the positive road. I have not experienced this in the lineages I've practiced through. So, your statement is a mute point according to my personal experience and merely conjecture based upon reading some "shit" and not actually practicing lineage transmissions.

 

Thus, you are ignorant when it comes to talking about lineages and are merely a critic without any direct experience to base your criticisms on.

Vaj, you know it's personal with you. You know that when I criticize the lineage I am threatening an important part of your personal identity. This is why you react so traumatically. If you really had faith in your lineages, you wouldn't defend them as if lineages were soap bubbles. Of course you know soap bubbles is what they are. They teach you that themselves, if you are willing to pay attention.

"All things are in a state that reflects the state of intent." Intent always come first according to you.

Intent doesn't come first. Intent is the directional property of phenomena. If intent somehow came first, it would need to exist in a state that's separate and disconnected from its result. That's not logically sensible and it contradicts my personal experience of intentionality.

Whatever state arises comes from intent.

States are intentional but they don't come from intent. I don't like the "come from" formulation.

Thus all states are completely controlled by something.

Control by itself is already too extreme a term. Complete control is extreme beyond any doubt. The word I would use is influence.

Completely meaning that there is no state which isn't intended.

Yes. However intent doesn't result in perfect control. In other words, if I hold my arm out, it will shake a bit. I can't perfectly control my arm. Still, my arm goes out as intended for the most part when I decide to hold it out.

Intent in our day to day usage is strongly conditioned by beliefs and habits. So there are limits to what we can sincerely intend. You can't intend something you don't believe is possible. While all things are possible in theory, in practice beliefs obscure and hinder this. But even if one knows all things are possible, there is still habit to deal with.

What is in complete control? You tell me.

Within your field of awareness all things are manifestations of your intent. Those things are not perfectly controlled, but they generally reflect your intent.

It's like a flock of sheep that generally follows the herder's prompting even if you don't control each individual sheep. That's the general principle. This example shows the difference between control and influence. But this example should not be taken literally because in this example the herder is an animal on par with the sheep. Intent is not an object on par with other objects. This is the limitation of using examples. While I demonstrate one property by example, I obscure another.

It's not how people ordinarily feel because human intent is conditioned by beliefs about being human. In other words, you can only do things you believe humans can do, because you believe yourself to be a human actor. Since you think you are a human actor, your intent acquires some limitations inherent in that belief.

You are proposing that there is something which is directing and determining. What is that?

I don't understand your question here.

Right, and if there weren't sound that you played through the speakers for you to turn off, there would be no speakers.

That's true.

One who claims to understand DO should know that.

My point was that speakers don't always emit sound. Sometimes they emit sound and sometimes they do not. Mind is not like that. Mind cannot sometimes fail to cognize something.

Your enlightenment is mere concept pushing,

You are wrong.

it merely scratches the surface. Trust me GIH. Listen to what I have to say, it's worthy of hearing.

I always ask people to question what I say and never to take my word for anything. Instead you tell me to listen to you unquestionably. You exhibit an attitude of a devil when you do this.

You do not teach meditation techniques and mantra techniques,

That's not strictly true. I mostly teach people mindfulness and inquiry, but once in a while I recommend a meditation technique (especially if I think the person is overly agitated or anxious). There are tons of people around who recommend meditation. I don't lift the entire burden by myself. Instead I look around and find what's lacking. Meditation instructions are not lacking. Inquiry is lacking. Severely.

I don't teach mantras, that's true.

mantras that have been used by beings who became enlightened masters that have walked the Earth thus by using them you are creating a karmic connection to them. A liberating karmic connection so powerful that you have no idea what I'm talking about because your experience is limited by it's lack of true practice and attainment.

Actually my practice is extremely sincere, and because of that, it's as true as it can ever be for anyone anywhere. So there is no doubt whatsoever that my practice is true. My practice is not the same as your practice because if I did the things you did, it would be pretentious for me.

You also don't teach yogic techniques which help the body cells change their vibration and hold the state of rigpa with clarity through the physical apparatus.

Err... I teach that rigpa is non-physical and that all the physical appearances are just merely appearances without any kind of physicality behind them, underpinned instead by habit. Because of this, there is no way I can teach what you describe, because I'd be teaching people to be ignorant if I did that. I don't teach ignorance.

You also don't teach visualizations which bring the mind into non-conceptual states of wisdom which can lead to the Jalus. This is a compassionate manifestation for the sake of elongating ones connection with physically present beings beyond the 3 dimensional appearance of ones personal body.

I do teach visualization from time to time, but not for the purpose of emanating a rainbow body. If you understand the meaning of what I teach, you'll be able to eventually transform the mental habits responsible for keeping the body appearance solid, thus emanating a rainbow body. But this will only happen if it's your true sincere intent. In other words, I give people all the tools they need to manifest anything they can ever want. I tell people about the wish fulfilling gem, as well as why and how it fulfills all wishes at all times. There is no need to confuse people with techniques. Once people understand the principle of manifestation, they can come up with their own techniques, like a boss.

Seriously, you are deeply lacking in anything other than a good dose of concept pushing.

Not true.

Ok, I'm just going to repeat what I said before to you GIH, as it is very important.

 

Intention precedes all states. That is basically what you are saying.

That's not what I am saying. If intention preceded a state, then there would be a moment of intent, followed by a moment of the result of intent. I don't propose this at all.

Instead in each state intent is immanent. Think of intent as a direction. The car drives in a certain direction at all times. It's not true that first there is a moment of pure direction, followed by a moment of pure driving. Instead every driving moment is characterized by direction.

The effect of intention may not be complete control, but even then that effect of non-complete control is completely controlled by this intent. Correct?

What do you mean by the bolded "completely?"

Actually, a speaker can't exist without sound. Sound is the whole reason speakers were invented.

I can switch off my speakers when I don't want to wake up my wife.

If you think like this, then you will not be able to apply wisdom in a nuanced fashion through conceptual elaboration.

 

Then, how about, wisdom is a product of consciousness? How about that, does that work for your personal sensibilities?

No, that doesn't work either. Wisdom is a result of recognizing unskillful beliefs by being mindful and observing the effects beliefs have in day to day life. So wisdom appears in consciousness, but wisdom has specific conditions leading to its arising. If you just say wisdom is a product of consciousness, you're failing to mention these specific conditions that are necessary for wisdom.

Consciousness is much too general a term. Consciousness is accommodating and flexible. It's fine with ignorance and it's fine with wisdom. Consciousness doesn't lean toward wisdom. Wisdom is a personal choice. If you choose to be ignorant, consciousness will support you just as happily.

Wow, this old dog can't learn new tricks, can he?

What are you talking about?

I guess it doesn't have to be an object. But if you claim that mind is the source of all, as you have before in this thread, that means that it does have these qualities -- control, will, etc.

Control is a rather extreme word. I prefer influence if you want to be precise, but generally I agree with you here.

When we speak of the mind as a source, it is a little confusing though. For example, we may say the speaker which is attached to a computer is the source of the sound. So when we talk about sources, we are often talking about objects like speakers. Also, sources can exist without things that proceed from them. For example, a speaker can exist without sound. If we melt the ice to get drinkable water, we say that the ice is our water source. But the ice doesn't have to be melted into water... it can be left alone as ice. Etc.

The mind cannot be without some kind of activity. In other words, unlike conventional sources which can be found in a non-emitting state, the mind cannot be found in a state that lacks cognitions. The mind is not an object. Instead the mind is a word that refers to the ability to recognize, know, perceive objects in the first place. So in these ways it's confusing to call the mind a "source." But it's not entirely wrong to call the mind a source. There is some merit in calling the mind a source of all phenomena, even if it's not a 100% accurate expression.

Does this mind you are talking about have control. Can it manipulate things around it?

The mind is intentional through and through, although the effect of intention does not enter the extreme of complete control. All things are always in a state that reflects the state of intent.

In practical terms you have to consider habit, conditioning beliefs and forgetfulness as obstacles to taking full advantage of intent.

You are better than any lineage? GIH, you are very arrogant. I can be very arrogant too. But at least I can admit my arrogance.

Yes, I am better than any lineage in the specific ways I described. Lineages might be better than me in some other ways. For example in a lineage you can find a bigger community than in me. If the size of the community matters, then it's an advantage of the lineage over me. I have no problem admitting such things.

Something which has control. Which has will. Which can choose and manipulate. Something which is not an object, but can manipulate objects.

When you say "something" do you mean an object of some sort to which these qualities (of control, will, ability to choose) are attributed?

So then, consciousness is a product of awareness.

No. Consciousness and awareness are largely synonymous terms. Neither is the product of the other. Please stop your nonsense.

You're so full of yourself GIH.

With statements like this, I'm glad that you are. Because if you weren't, you wouldn't make such a statement.

 

So, you are a real Master GIH?

It depends. What kind of qualifications should a real master have? Depending on your answer I will either confirm or deny my mastery.

Oh well... I should just shut up then because you don't approve of my expressions. Oh great god! So sorry!

 

Out of genuine compassion, I do care how Buddhadharma is translated into the West, for the sake of those interested will not be confused by people such as yourself.

That is highly unlikely, but I welcome your vigilance in this regard.

Not that you have nothing good to say, because you do, but you are no master dear fellow.

Who I am has nothing to do with your appraisal. I may well be a master. It doesn't matter much because I always ask people not to disengage critical thinking. If I claimed to be a master so that people would start taking my word for everything I say, that would be bad. But is that what I am doing? If I claimed to be a master so that I could gather a group of dittoheads around me to be used as my personal army and income generating serfs, that would be bad. But is that what I am doing?

You have lots to humble yourself to and lots deeper to go. You also don't have a clear enough understanding of the intentions and practices of Buddhist lineage to be a good source of information concerning critical analysis of it.

You should humble yourself. You believe because you're part of a lineage (just barely) you are above in status over those who are not part of a lineage. That's arrogance.

My position is that lineages hold some wisdom, but lineages also hold a lot of cultural baggage, and lineages abuse the dittohead phenomenon for personal gain from time to time. Cultish behavior is common in many lineages. Lineages also practice unjustified secrecy for the sake of status, control, and personal gain. These are the real dangers of lineages, which I warn people about.

I too hold some wisdom, but unlike lineages, I don't come packaged with all these negative side-effects I mentioned and my claims are much more modest as well. My only claim is that what I have to say is worth paying attention to. That's it. Lineages claim they hold the exclusive keys to enlightenment and other grandiose claims. Even if I ever decided to claim I hold the keys to enlightenment, I would never claim exclusivity. These are just some ways in which I am better than any lineage.

I see this all as an excuse not to learn more and to stay conditioned by limited views of English concepts.

 

You are conscious, yes? But not necessarily aware of what that one person is doing in Alaska with his wife on the front porch of a specific house on the coast.

 

Just like an ant is conscious, but is not aware of the nature of his consciousness.

Just like an ant is aware, but is not conscious of the nature of his awareness. Hmm... Sounds just as good.

I think consciousness is more synonymous with sentience than it is with awareness when one wants to talk from a spiritual point of view in translating the Buddhadharma into English in a nuanced fashion. If you or anyone wants to resist this, then go ahead. For me, experientially, it fits and plenty read it and agree with me. I can't write for everybody on planet Earth.

Stop with the Buddha Dharma! Some of us are interested in wisdom.

Back here, you said this. When you say intentional, do you mean that there is an agent that is in control, which is choosing to recognize?

What do you mean by "agent?"

Yes, but unlike you, who thinks himself the wisest of the wise, the super guru who will bring down all dogmatic systems of thought in the world while much like Krishnamurti, will not proclaim himself to be a guru and say not to go get transmissions from real lineage guru's, but to listen to him instead.

Jeez... First, this is not a correct sentence. To make a correct sentence out of your brain fart, you have to add a statement about someone other than me. It will look like this: "Unlike you, who blah blah, I am blah blah."

Second, all those gurus you think are real, are not in fact real. They are fake.

Third, I never ask people to listen to me in a slavish manner. I ask that people consider what I say. That's it. I don't ask to be followed. I encourage everyone to read everything I write with critical thinking engaged. Do you ever do this?

Meanwhile will be absolutely unaware of his own inner dogmas concerning reality.

Such as?

I am more interested in how the Indian born Buddhadharma transfers itself into the West.

Not me. I don't give a shit about Indian born Buddhadharma. I only care about wisdom, freedom, compassion and things like that. That's a totally different focus. It just so happens that Buddhist writings say some useful things which I like. But that's mostly an irrelevant coincidence.

To do so, would mean being very nuanced and scholarly in how I use English to define terms which originally appear in Sanskrit.

That's an obnoxious attitude toward everyone outside your religion. You don't want to speak the common tongue because you only care about your precious religion and nothing else. I don't approve of this attitude.

What you are stating is still based upon subjective ignorance though.

 

Sanskrit is far more powerful of a language and far more nuanced. I grew up Hindu chanting Sanskrit and learning the meaning of it's words while living in an English speaking country, so I am aware of both. Even repeating the words itself is very nuanced and use more of the tongue and mouth than English and have a tendency to ground a person more and focus a persons mind more, as it's far less sloppy of a language and yes, far more nuanced as an objective fact.

 

It's not necessary for liberation, but there is a reason why Buddhist tantric masters refer back to Sanskrit over and over again. You think it's a dogma, but really, it's just your lack of experience in traditional forms of Buddhism from India. Sanskrit is a language with more particulars and more grounding definition even within the nuances of repeating the syllables.

 

It's true that if a person only knows English, then English is what's going to grant access to the meaning of concepts and not Sanskrit. None the less, I am who I am as you are you, just as conditioned as you are by your upbringing in order to mold your mode of expression, as am I. So, I have if you will, helped you see the concept of awareness from a different view point, thus broadening your experience of awareness. That is my intention. You can take it or leave it.

Err... Vajra, there is a term in the English language for your condition. It's called fetishism. You have a Sanskrit fetish. Like any fetish, it's not rational. It's purely aesthetic. There is no point in arguing with it. Just try to understand what I say here:

1. People don't speak Sanskrit.

2. Sanskrit jargon confuses people and often serves as a linguistic rug under which all kinds of ignorance is swept. For example hardly anyone who uses the term karma in the West knows that karma means intent.

3. Natural intuitions that we have built up for various English terms are hard to simply move aside in the subconscious mind. So when you introduce some new weird twist on a familiar term, you have to deal with the fact that the person is now working with a loaded term. Meaning, the old familiar meaning is not gone, but is going to interfere with your new twisted meaning.

I ask that you please try to respect these facts (I believe all 3 points here are factual). I realize you have a Sanskrit fetish. That's fine, but try to keep it to yourself. Besides, you're pissing off all the Tibetan fetishists who think Tibetan has the most subtle vibes.

It should be understood by how I contextualize it. Why be so static? I am using the conventional term in an unconventional way without destroying it's conventional meaning entirely, but it makes sense. Follow me on it, you won't be disappointed.

 

How is awareness not a product of consciousness? How am I wrong?

First, I would say awareness and consciousness are interchangeable terms in the English usage.

Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

Notice how the terms are at least somewhat synonymous? Still, we distinguish "conscious mind" from the "subconscious mind." We customarily don't say "aware mind" and "subaware mind." So dependent on context either "consciousness" or "awareness" may be more appropriate.

Second, you introduced your weird usage of "awareness" without warning people and without explaining your definition.

Third, you're using some kind of twist based on the Buddhist jargon. This excludes all the non-Buddhist readers to some extent, which is not necessary.

When I write I try to make myself understandable to everyone regardless of religious or spiritual background. I think that's a good idea in general, so I hope you agree with me and join me in this endeavor. If you agree, please try to make yourself understandable to everyone. This means when you talk to a non-sectarian audience, you should forget the Buddhist jargon as much as you can. That's not only a polite thing to do, it's a compassionate thing to do.

I took Russian in college and some of the great works of literature are written in that language. Does that mean I should only discuss Dostoevsky in Russian among my English speaking friends? If I did, I would be labeled a snob and would be ostracized.

(For a bit of a background: Russian is my first language, but I haven't read Dostoevsky in any language.) From my point of view Dostoevsky's writing is purely aesthetic, meaning, its only function is to bring enjoyment of reading to the reader.

Spiritual writings are different in that while they can be enjoyable to read, their purpose is not to deliver an enjoyable hour of reading, but to serve as mental tools for lasting life transformation.

So I would be OK if you decided to only discuss Dostoevsky in Russian, because Dostoevsky is a luxury. I agree it would be snobish, but I would say tolerable. Spiritual teachings of the elucidating and empowering kind are our birthright, which is very different from a luxury. Denying people their own spiritual birthright in their own language is intolerable. It goes beyond mere snobbery. It is a serious offense.