stefos

Understood. The point I'm trying to make is: What did Shakyamuni teach???? Not "What did the Mahasiddhas teach?" In Dzogchen, this is Garab Dorje teaching, not Shakyamuni nor the other Mahasiddhas. stefos

Hi malikshreds, What I particularly refer to is the then understood concept of the neuter Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads. Historians understand that in the time of the Buddha the term, Brahman, had many different interpretations actually. It's my belief that the Buddha got fed up and said "Time to experience Brahman and not talk about it any more" Modern scholarship shows that the Theravada interpretation of the Pali texts isnt' exactly true to the Pali corpus of texts either, even though this school is the historically oldest school. The Thera's interpretations on the Pali texts are conflicting as well in terms of the "hows" to meditation..Ex. kasinas, Anapansati, Bare awareness, etc. The Thera's have the various types of meditation but it's all kind of disjointed and not cohesive.....This means something is wrong, in my opinion. My 2 cents, stefos

Hi alwayson, THE thing is this: The Tibetan siddhas got their info from Indian Buddhism which took from Tantric "Hinduism" per se. I'm not entirely sure of the Tantric history in India beside that of Sri Vidya....sorry. The fact is that Vajrayana is not the Buddha's original teaching in sum total! How could it be? We only have the Pali texts which date to 350 yrs at least AFTER the Buddha died. Vajrayana is great, don't get me wrong. However, the Tibetan canon itself is not older than the Pali texts. Also, the Buddha more than likely made provision to see that what he taught was continued as there exists no evidence to the counter. No one knows what the Buddha truly taught unless a more ancient form of texts are found and even then these are written texts! How far removed are they? What about the "24 schools" period of Buddhist confusion? What do we, who practice "Buddhism" today have to logically say about this? Furthermore, Most if not all "Buddhism" today is syncretistic. I do not believe we will find the sum total of what the Buddha taught....ultimately it is experienced and not codified in language only. My 2 cents sir/miss/ma'am....God bless you! stefos

@idiot-stimpy, Hi, You really should read more about Phowa sir/miss/ma'am. The Tibetan Buddhist texts call this the "forceful ejection of the mind out of the body." Is it a form of suicide? NO. Phowa is not meant to commit suicide because one isn't the body to begin with nor is it taught in a nonchalant way for offing one's "self." Phowa is meant to benefit ALL sentient beings by having the yogi enter another body to continue teaching. Also, I believe that Phowa is to be done when a yogi is about to die anyway, not "Gee, I feel really bummed about Samsara...NIrvana here I come!!!! Weeeee" By the way, I'm not trying to disrespect or belittle you, PLEASE understand me when I say this. God bless you! stefos

@Adept, WOW! Nice....I wonder what they DO say.....Hmmmm....probably not Theravada for sure. The Theravada purists will kill me for saying this! LOL stefos

Hi everyone, No, the Buddha wasn't silent about God. The Pali texts written 400 yrs after the death of the Buddha have him relegate Brahma to a god status but to a mortal god. The Pali texts also make no mention of Brahman, neuter term, AT ALL...... Lastly, the Pali texts are NOT indicative of what the Buddha actually said....Why? After the Buddha died, his teachings became distorted...approx. 150 yrs after his death, the "24 schools period" arose. At this time 24+ sects/schools existed which touted being the "true Dharma." Out of these 24 sects, 2 remained till today...The modern "Theravada" & "Mahayana" Here's a Wikipedia link....."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools" So, WHO represents the Buddha's actual thought today? I would say the closest are the Theravada, Dzogchen/Mahamudra and Ch'an. All of these traditions contain the kernel of the Buddha's teaching which is 5 skhandas, Samsara, and getting out of Samsara = Nirvana/Nibbana. I pesonally am of the persuasion that he DID in fact believe in God, both in God's personal & impersonal sense, but understood the limits of human thought & language as closed systems. Again, the Pali texts are NOT the most ancient sources of the Buddha's teaching just the oldest WRITTEN records. God bless you and remember: Use bare/naked awareness in this life! Stefos....

Hi everyone, I've never posted on this sub-forum. I just wanted to know how you view the above issue. (See topic title) Here's my background: I happen to be a Christian who has received Guru yoga empowerment along with other Dzogchen empowerments and who has had some very uncommon experiences spiritually speaking which I believe are due to the reintegration of dissipated energy via different meditative practices. In relating with the opposite sex, I don't desire to control or manipulate or use anyone. I speak plainly, openly and honestly. I also have never taken advantage of someone when they were emotionally "down" or vulnerable. So, Here's my situation/perception: I don't drink alcohol, nor do I visit dance clubs at all. I also do not go to singles dances or strange things like that. Where I live in the United States offers no real common ground for meeting singles, much much less spiritual singles. I see a beautiful woman and I say "Wow, she's nice looking..beautiful" whatever the phrase might be. I don't approach her...ever. I think that my perceptions both from a Christian & Dzogchen perspective are making me leery of getting involved with women due to the obvious fact that each spiritual path has certain injunctions, per se, revolving around worldview/perception (by itself) & morals (by itself) & the two's interconnection as well. I also personally believe that my current financial situation is such that a great majority of women would not be attracted to someone who is not "mid career" or who isn't on the up & up insofar as a great financial position is concerned. So, How does one who is spiritual (me that is) express an attraction to the opposite sex while maintaining one's moral beliefs? In a world where relativism is growing more and more, I want to stand for that which is right and moral, considering women as I would myself. Comments please! They are appreciated. stefos

Hi turtle shell, Thanks for responding. Yes, I believe your right. The issue is: I want to make sure that I treat all women with dignity. Not only that, but I'm sexual (heterosexual) & I desire to express that properly and not in sleeping around. In the U.S., many people profess that they "I believe in God" however when pressed they are ignorant. Furthermore, when I speak with people about Buddhism, they think either "Shaolin Temple" or "Dalai Lama" with no understanding behind the spreading of Buddhism into China & Tibet respectively nor do they care really (in a non malignant way.) So, yes. There is a particular cost in being an actual follower of Jesus or of the Buddha when you have to live & walk it out. Lastly, I notice a kind of blind spot when it comes to women in general that needs to be mindfully addressed: With women, in my experience, very, very few will "love" a man if he isn't "established" or "has his stuff together," whatever that truly means! LOL Actually, it's understanable but it seems to be a deep rooted fear of not being able to live, etc. etc. This doesn't mean that I'm not mindful of money and spending and food & clothing, etc. It means that I have to own my actions which include spending. Let me illustrate maybe: Ex. Christians are suppose to work & trust God in everything, money included and not worry & fret to include the "career" and making lots of money. Buddhists are supposed to understand the nature of Samsara, the nature of Dukkha, impermanence, and Annatta to include a "career" and making a lot of money. The problem is properly understanding life, death & the meaning of it all...the "point" in other words. Keeping things in context. If these ladies were interested in truly walking with me, in a committed relationship, then they would understand and live their Christianity or Buddhism while not pushing that I be like a non-Christian or a non-Buddhist. stefos

You're right...Thank you! Besides, eharmony.com is expensive and kind of removed also. stefos

Hi everyone, I've been researching Advaita Vedanta for some time now and I haven't found a guru of Advaita Vedanta nor a Sanyasi whom I know has legitimate connections to the sampradaya itself. Does anyone know of an authentic lineage which teaches meditation along this path please? I am aware that Adi Sankara established 4 mathas in India and I have been particularly looking into the Sringeri Matha in Southern India. Thanks & God bless you as you follow God, stefos

Me....a locus of consciousness

@The O.P..... Well, let me share an "interesting experience" with you....READY? (this is meant for suspense and not offense, I know it's all caps...sorry): O.K. About 17 years ago, I went into a metaphysical bookstore, actually I didn't realize what that even meant really. I saw Tibetan singing bowls and crystal bowls and I decided to play a Tibetan bowl, which I did and then I gently placed it on it's circular base/stand, letting it "sing" or ring. I walked to the owner of the store who was behind a glass display case, a little higher than my waist, and a rested my 2 forearms there, relaxed and just gazing at her. After I rested my 2 forearms on the metal part of the display case, I fell into a trance and saw a veil of sorts being removed from in front of my eye view level and I could then clearly see 2 bands of colors parallelling one another near this person's left hand side ribcage: Pastel green & Pastel purple and each band had the color black centrally located and the borders of each band were yellow/golden. After this experience, I shook the trance off, so to speak and told her about it. Some time later, I got a hold of Dora Van Gelder Kunz's book "The personal aura" & C.W. Leadbeater's book about the various "bodies" that people have surrounding the physical. What I saw was the "astral" or emotional part, not body, of this person, I would surmise. So....I'm studying spirituality, existence & consciousness in its various facets & expressions...... Do I now receive "brownie points?"....yum... stefos....The above is a true story! No drugs, booze, hypnosis, hysteria or "delusions" were involved.....It was a regular day and I wasn't expecting ANYTHING to happen......bye Edited: 2/3/13 P.S. The lady above showed my a print out of an "aura photograph" she got done after I told her what I saw and the 2 colors showing on the print out as major influences, I assume, were green & purple! Hard to believe but true.....

Hi everone, I don't know why magick is being used at all anymore, particularly in the HOGD and other magickal societies including neo-paganism. Can someone please explain to me why magic is still being used? Thank you, stefos P.S. It seems that the HOGD & Crowley both mixed Eastern spirituality & Western Hermeticism together trying to pull off a legitimate spiritual system. That's how I perceive it anyway.

Hi everyone, Thanks for your input. I understand what Levi said but not what he meant. Furthermore, what is "up" with Israel Regardie please? Has anyone heard positive things about this man? I know he died in the 80's and I picked up his "Tree of Life" book actually. A legitimate branch of the HOGD was started by a certain Chick Cicero who had corresponce & friendship with Mr. Regardie. The above point is what I want insight into. Thank you, Stefos

Yes sir....Sri Ramana...time for pranams...

Hi everyone, Happy New Year! My understanding is such: Consciousness is the ground upon which the material world finds it's root, so to speak. Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism & Christianity all find consciousness or Brahman, Nibbana, God the Father respectively to be this "root." My understanding is that prana is "life energy" as there is a pranic or ether body. Magick is the manipulation of people, not of prana, with the aim of controlling them, Correct? Rudolph Steiner mentioned thoughts, feellings and emotions as forming a unity as such. Magick is the manipulation of others thoughts, feelings and emotions, on the relative level of the personality/ego...Correct? I don't want to know about Crowley....not interested in the least. I don't know! Forgive the ignorance. Thank you, Stefos P.S. As a side note, Dr. Steiner mentioned the "guardian of the threshold" being created as a result of "low magic." Zanoni is meant to be a fictional work upon this "guardian of the threshold."

Hi everyone, I've been initiated into Guru Yoga by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. I've also been doing Buddhist historical studies as well. When I see how changes took place within the Sangha, as it were, I see that the Buddha taught a particular way. This way, I believe, is found in portions in the Pali Nikayas. So, since Theravada Buddhism can contend to be the oldest "complete" ancient form of Buddhism, along with the Sarvastivada (found "embedded" only in Tibetan Buddhist circles mind you), I had a question: Scholars claim that the Nikayas are an amalgamation of more recent addendums "Milindapanha" with more ancient texts "Majjhima Nikaya", "Udana", "Ittivuttaka" Do YOU believe that the Pali texts and Theravada Buddhists reflect a composite mixture of various "modern" and "ancient" forms of practice or not? Ex. Jhanas/Kasinas/Mindfulness of Breath Thank you, stefos

Hi everyone, Something concerns me regarding these Siddhas: When I read a Ramana Maharshi or a Adi Sankara or a Sri Nisargadatta, they ALL say: Hold the thought "Who am I?" in mind....not chakras, nadis, bandhas, bindus, etc. As a matter of fact, both R.M., A.S, & S.N. all said that working with the subtle energy system doesn't lead to enlightenment. I ask: How do YOU posit this particular Siddha and Siddhas like him? Enlightenment is the goal & not siddhis/riddhis. Thank you, stefos

Hello, When I read the New Testament...I find a "person" being structured in this way: BTW, my first language is Greek not English... Body (Greek word is Soma) Soul (Greek word is Pseehee) Spirit (Greek word is Pnevma) Mind (Greek word is Nous)....a tool for the spirit and not a "fourth" member....like a groupie! The body is the physical body The soul is composed of feelings and mind The spirit is the indestructible me, as it were...which I label with a name or title. Atman = Brahman also has its' counterpart in the New Testament as such: People are spirits = God is spirit...NOT a spirit? Why the differentiation? Everthing exists "in" God The New Testament also states that "our spirit becomes one with his spirit, making us the children of God" There is too much of an unwillingness by people to read and actually do comparative religious study on these matters folks. I've seen it from the academics, EXCEPT for Thomas Mcevilley's book "The Shape of Thought," down to the non-academics also. Research this & tell me it isn't so. Thank you, stefos

Hi everyone, I heard this guy Yogiraj state that "Babaji was the Fuhrer of Jesus." When I heard that I said "This guy is so severely wrong at this point" but I continued to listen and no apology came from him and I finally said "Done with Yogiraj FakeSiddhanath" Beware of this clown! stefos

@ theurgy, Hello sir/ms./ma'am, May I ask you what your perspective is please on modern "rosicrucian" bodies? Thank you, stefos

Hi Edward M, I'll cut to the chase and assume you understand alchemical thought in general (not literal gold making) as that is what the rosicrucians were involved with it seems. I say "it seems" because this group was/is secretive in a good way. I was involved with AMORC but very briefly. H. Spencer Lewis supposedly contacted a "real" Rosicrucian body in the South of France. He also knew one of the last people who was related to a rosicrucian body in the U.S. (this lady was a Theosophist when he knew her but he spoke w/her and she gave him some physical objects regarding the order and discussed things.) A rosicrucian body was established in Ephrata, Pennsylvania about 400 yrs ago by German rosicrucians from Europe. Some say they died out...Others that they kept to themselves and shared openly very little but still exist. Julius Sachse wrote a book called: The German Pietists of provincial Pennsylvania, 1694-1708 in which he describes this rosicrucian body...as I term it. Now, beyond this regarding the Pennsylvania rosicrucians, I don't know. I myself want to go to Pennsylvania and investigate the Ephrata area and other areas. In AMORC, when Lewis died, his son took over, after his son died another person took over (Gary Stewart) and some sort of scandal arose in he was eventually cleared of all charges after he resigned, I believe. AMORC is now kind of "based" out of Canada and not the U.S. anymore. AMORC also has "filiation" as it's called with a Martinist order. Please understand that Martinism is not Rosicrucianism...different altogether. Martinism is called "The way of the heart." This order was started by Jean de St. Martin (French name not English.) My opinion: AMORC has no true rosicrucian roots because if one was to examine rosicrucian plates (pages which formed a book) one would see Kabbalah being used and expressed along with alchemical thought. For example: A book called "The secret teachings of the rosicrucians of the 16th & 17th centuries" is a book you can download at scribd.com (In original German and the English version too I believe). In it, Kabbalah is explicit, as is the 7 planet system along with the 4 elements & the great 3 "Salt, Mercury, and Sulphur". Another point of concern is that most "rosicrucian" bodies today seem to have lifted material from Blavatskyian Theosophy and rarely mention Jakob Boehme. I say this because Julius Sachse mentioned that Boehme's works were found in the possesion of these rosicrucians in the area of Ephrata, Pennsylvania and I assume, not having read his book in full yet, that they did in fact look into Boehme's writings. Take care, stefos

Hi everyone, The title says it all. It seems that Dzogchen, which I was initiated into, seems to collaborate with the Self of Advaita Vedanta. In Tibet, the "new" schools of Gelug, Sakya, and Kagyu all disagree that Dzogchen is an authentic Buddhist lineage although the "Rime" movement tried to reconcile some things. Anyway, I was interested in the 4 particular schools that Shankara disagreed with and seems to have refuted in his commentary of the Brahma Sutras (Prasthanathraya). Which ones were they and why did he disagree with them? Does it make sense to anyone? I think I get the reasoning behind it but.....trying to get the fullest picture possible. Also, Does anyone know if Shankara disagreed with Dzogchen? Any insight would be appreciated! Thank you & God bless you! Stefos

Yes to what you've stated. The salient issue is that what DID the Buddha first i.e. "originally" teach? I also have seen AN-atta being pushed as "not self" and conversely "no-self." The point is, is that everything created is subject to decay and ultimately is not eternal, not truly satisfying. Most modern Buddhist "schools" say that "There is no self at all on any level" not truly realizing what other religions qualify this self as! Hmmm... The Pali texts don't represent the original teachings of the Buddha in total. They do contain parts of his teachings I would say. It seems that "Buddhist" groups/sanghas in the west deny anything metaphysical in Buddhism...very secular thinking indeed. Nevertheless, I'm not an Atheist and I've seen too much and as a personal side note know 2 people who have seen full bodied apparitions of an elderly nurse at the local VA that I work at! Interesting isn't it? I think so. I also have seen a being which was translucent and looked unlike what I've seen before in my life about 10 yrs. ago. Nevertheless. Buddhism posited existence of metaphysical realities before the creation of this universe. This also is something that western "Buddhist" circles seem to neglect or minimize. I "feel" like I'm a hostage here in the U.S. with these Buddhist spiritual traditions dwai. I've distanced myself from "Buddhist" groups because of how they teach what they think the Buddha first actually taught. I don't believe we'll ever know what he taught as we don't have anything more ancient than the Pali texts which came after the so-called "24 schools" period. So it is, God bless you stefos

Hello dwai, I don't know if you are a Buddhist or not. O.K.....I believe the Buddha was a Theist or believed in Brahman. The Buddha mentioned the "unborn, undying, not-becoming, etc." Surely he didn't mean HIS mind. Can you please comment on this? Do you believe the Buddha was an Atheist? Thank you, stefos