Pero

Oh my, I guess you and him should be able to become real good buddies then. .

They might be respectful to each other, but that doesn't mean they'd agree.

I don't know why it would be offensive, but I don't really understand it.

Adept, WTF? This isn't a thread about someone's deceased loved one, so your whiny objections have no merit here. And there isn't a person in the world who hasn't or won't lose someone dear to them.

Here's something that I didn't know and might be of interest also:

LOL, no, you obviously don't.

I see. I just checked in the big medical qigong book by dr. J.A. Johnson and there it says fire=up the governing, down the conception water=up the conception, down the governing wind=up the taiji pole, down the conception.

Also Blasto, are you sure this is the wind path? My memory might be off since it's been a while since I read about it, but I thought the reverse orbit was the water path, "normal" was the fire path and the wind path was actually using a little different channels.

What Hagar was talking about was how the chi flow is generally in those meridians according to TCM. And it is indeed up the conception vessel and not down. Though the flow in the governing is up as well.

Thanks for all that. Do you have any more links from J.A. Johnson? The medical qigong ones I mean.

Ah yes, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and all that came after them, those were beginners right? But the grand people of today are the masters. Incredible indeed.

I think I remember that in one of Chia's books it's under fire. Like a more gentle version of red. I have this impression too. Why do you ask Pietro?

Because he's the epic moron.

Oh I'm not going back to read everything again. What would be the point. And you weren't the only one. Hehe, even as is I've wrote too much but I just couldn't help myself, old habits die hard. Anyway just continue to practice whatever Buddhist teaching you practice and don't disparge its other schools and you'll do great.

Hm yes, perhaps you should try harder as many of the things you said about Vajrayana/Dzogchen in this thread were flat out wrong. You seem knowledgeable about sutras though and I admire that. I wish I knew so much.

Hmm interesting. I wonder where all this is coming from. Oh well, no matter. I am not Tibetan. In general when I hear such things on the net it is my feeling that the people who say them don't really understand what part is culture and what is not. What is important and what is not. And here on this forum there is often advertising by people that they teach practices stripped of their cultural trappings or something in that sense. And then I look at my practice texts and don't find anything that I could strip away that would really be just a Tibetan cultural thing. Not to mention that since this is the way they are transmitted one shouldn't change anything unless they were themselves enlightened. Perhaps not even then. I believe this is the general sutra explanation. Yes indeed. Plants naturally grow. However add the appropriate things and they will grow more.

I looked again just to be sure. It's trivial for this discussion. And, you really have to be careful when reading such texts. But in any case I don't want to get involved in a debate with you because I see no benefit in it.

Well now, here's a word I've never heard before. Oh really? I don't see anything like that in what you quoted. And since we're on the subject, I don't see anything like what you've said about the Nang-jang either.

You're just hilarious.

No, Vajrayana is superior then. It's like if you wanted to go to Rome. You'd need a vehicle. Let's say you know how to fly a plane, drive a car and ride a bike. So the superior way would be to fly the plane because that'll get you there faster. It would be silly to go with a bike if you can fly a plane. On the other hand if you only know how to ride a bike, it's not possible for you to go with a car or plane. I don't think so. Vajrayana, Mantrayana, Tantrayana - these are all synonyms. Sutrayana is like the base, the foundation. If it's non-existant, for most of us it will be really difficult if not impossible to practice Vajrayana. Well I think there's some debate over that. Firstly there is a difference between Mahayana and Hinayana realisation. And then Vajrayana says that through common Mahayana you can only reach the 10th bhumi, but not the 11th, 12th or 13th. These are all Buddhahood already, but the 13th is highest. But I don't really understand the differences between them. No no, that's not what I wanted to say. From the POV of a person, his capacity, what is superior is what works for him. But if you take all the paths together then there is a hierarchy, like in your 1st question. Basically, the difference between high/low teachings is in the methods and speed. Vajrayana is also called the path of skillful means if I'm not mistaken. This is because it has numerous methods, which work quickly, that Sutrayana lacks. Though in this thread someone is saying that Buddhahood is achieved in one lifetime in Sutra too, I really don't think that's the case. Because in Sutra you have to accumulate merits and wisdom for many many lifetimes before you can achieve Buddhahood. While in Highest Yoga Tantra this can be done in one lifetime.

Well I don't really want to get involved in a debate, but I'll give a shot to answering your questions according to my limited understanding. Good points, you are correct. Superiority of the path mostly depends on the person's capacity. For example, if someone is unable to practice Vajrayana but is able to practice ordinary Mahayana then for that person ordinary Mahayana is superior and vice versa. However this is from the point of view of individuals. Well that depends on his goal, since Theravada is not a Mahayana school, the result will not be the same as someone practicing Vajrayana which is a Mahayana school. Different paths for different people, depending on their capacities, affinities and so on. That could be it too. Well certainly Hinayana may be criticized by Mahayana schools because the goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood while the goal of Hinayana is Arhatship. This though doesn't mean that Arthatship is not a worthy goal. From the POV of someone practicing to attain Arhatship this criticism is irrelevant. But for someone on the Mahayana path it's important so he knows what to practice. You should know that even within Dzogchen there are various teachings and one that is "higher" always criticizes the "lower". I think this is not to say that the lower has no value but simply to show how to practice the higher teachings without falling into the lower ones.

Oh I never said I wasn't.

Well two things are clear in any case. One is that dzogchen always brings a lot of discussion (on the internet at least) and two is that you're all fools.

I see. Thanks.

GIH, what does this "mindset" mean to you?