stefos

This is non-logical since Buddhism is based on the teachings of many Buddhas such as the Mahasiddhas, Dzogchen tertons etc. Not just Shakyamuni Gautama Buddha.

No, it is not non-logical. Early Buddhist thought & the Mahasiddhas are at odds at one another.

Not the same. The Mahasiddhas were influenced by a Mahayana & Tantric viewpoint

Dzogchen is not similar to the the Nikayas. Its totally different.

Yes, you're right. Dzogchen reflects the earliest Buddhist "gist", I believe, Ch'an does also.

However it would be incorrect to say that these 2 traditions reflect what Shakyamuni Buddha taught.

There is no logical way of proving what Buddha Shakyamuni actually FULLY taught....no way.

The Pali nikayas are the oldest & most complete texts we have, written 350 yrs after the Buddha died.

Stefos

Hi everyone,

Does anyone believe me?

It seems this thread just stopped! LOL

I swear to you all that the above event occurred as I state it....that's why I'm here.

Stefos

I would agree that the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and Madhyamaka are the distilled essence of Shakyamuni's teachings.

 

Mahayana arose in reaction to the crypto-realism of Abhidharma.

AHHH! We agree on something! Very Good.

Now, THE salient issue is: If Pali text Buddhism isn't pure Buddhist thought but redactionistic and only A view amongst many, then in truth NO ONE knows what the Buddha actually FULLY taught.

THAT sir, is the point of my statements......That is why I don't "buy" into Buddhism of today.

I practice Dzogchen & was initiated into Guru Yoga by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and find that that reflects a same vein of teaching as the Nikayas but without the Theravadic Abhidharmic stuff which is the Theras later add on.

Be at peace,

Stefos

Hi everyone,

Look, the Pali texts posit the Buddha speaking of Brahma and devas but not Brahman, which is neuter!

No where in the Pali texts is Brahman even found. Again, this is the situation in the Pali texts written 300 years after the Buddha's death and after the tumultuous "24 schools" period.

In the Buddha's day, Brahman was understood AND the Pali nikayas make no mention of this fact which was known in the vedas.

As a matter of fact, earliest Buddhism found in the Pali Nikayas shows a Vedic worldview of the Panchatattvas/Pachtattwas:

Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Akash....

Also, the Buddha's 2 pre-enlightenment teachers taught along Vedic lines not non-Vedic lines...

Research this and post.

Stefos

Longchenpa, Chokgyur Lingpa, the Mahasiddhas etc. are all Buddhas.

 

Why do you care about Shakyamuni taught?

O.K.....but why should I NOT care about what Shakyamuni taught?

I should care. Even in the Pali texts the Buddha is posited as saying "Don't believe what I say, experience it, think about it, see if it is so"

It's like saying "The mahayana is the FULL expression of what the Buddha stated"

IS it?.....The mahayana separated from the Sthaviravadins due to certain things as did the Sarvastivadins.

stefos

You do realize that Vajrayana is Indian right?

 

Practiced in India for hundreds of years?

I understood that SOME things were done in India but not all Mahasiddhas practices.

I refer to the Tibetan Mahasiddhas and not the Indian ones.

Garab Dorje who taught Dzogchen was from Oddiyana not India.

stefos

Again see previous post. Vajrayana is the teaching of the Mahasiddhas, not Shakyamuni Buddha.

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

Depends on what you mean by God. To truly understand what the ancients meant by God, you have trace back thousands upon thousands of years and go back to African History. The masculine type of God is pretty distorted imo. Based entirely on belief and lack of experience of God. Most people refer to God as the being.

 

The thing of the Father and I are one refers to enlightenment. Not much to over analyze there unless you are enlightened.

Can't really say that the Buddha did not believe (kinda of a harsh word though) in Gods when in fact, he gave certain methods for people to ask for help of dieties. Since there were a multitude of gods in his day. it cracks me up how people there is only one "god" (the being) when in fact so much of our history shows that is not true. Thus the best way to really talk about God is to treat that word as the Tao. I don't like to use the word God because people keep referring back to the Bible concept of it that sets up duality in a sense.

 

I kinda lost interest in these type of conversations because it becomes purely based on logic. Kinda like Spock haha. Not that logic is bad but we're missing the other side of it: experience. I'm probably gonna be talking about the concept of god less and less to people. Because I don't care anymore if a person believes in God or not. I care about what I experience and there's no point of converting others to my point of view.

 

You're missing a lot of stuff about Muhammad. First of all, you gotta think about his level of realization. Was he only in samadhi? Did a deity visit him? Ironically, allat was used by the Africans which referred to the female reality.

 

Too much history is missed when we talk about the Gods and the idea of God. A lot of distortion got in the way and ignorance. Lack of experience too.

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

Vajrayana is based on the teachings of the Mahasiddhas of India, not Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

The Mahasiddhas were Buddhas in their own right.

 

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....

Christian mingle. Also, get to know people in a church you go to.

 

Christians as well as other types of spiritual people, I think, tend to have an extremely hard time in the typical dating scene.

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

Meetup.com perhaps you can find like minded women at spiritual kind of events..

You're right...Thank you!

Besides, eharmony.com is expensive and kind of removed also.

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

Who pranams?

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 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

Hi everyone,

I'm new to this sub-forum so please understand that I am VERY ignorant about the Te Tao Ching.

I have Stephen Hendricks books which contain the Te Tao Ching in translations from the 2 archaeological finds from southwest and northern China respectively.

So, My question is this:

I've been keeping an eye out for linguistic similarities in various cultures, in particular the use of the the word "God."

In the following languages, God or a divine being is described as follows:

Theos (Greek) God.....Theia (Greek) Goddess

Deus (Latin) God

Deva (Sanskrit) God (divine being similar to an angel)

Shang Di/Ti (Chinese) God

Te (Aztec) God....Tenochtitlan....Teotl....etc.

Could it be that the Te Tao Ching is actually a Theistic work?

I have also noticed that "reuniting" with this consciousness/a state of being outside of space/time is THE main thrust of the Te Tao Ching and not creating elixirs giving a long life span...If I'm right of course. Western Alchemy echos the same sentiment as well.

Please comment!

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 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,

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

http://medhajournal....adic-terms.html

 

[/size][/font][/color]

[/size]

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