stefos

Hi everyone,

The point for me originally posting was not stated in the best of terms.

I should have, in hindsight, reworded certain things to make it more understandable & cogent to my

perception at the time of writing.

This is my fault alone and I own it.

Please forgive me everyone whom I've offended..........It truly was not meant as such.

My posts are generally done in the mode of investigation & understanding, not being critical, which anyone can be & do.

Thank you!

Stefos

UPDATE:

My original post has been changed to convey my proper intent.

The Buddhist Lamas (Dharma Kings) have convinced their followers that they control the transmission and who receives the highest teachings. This is nothing more than authoritarianism on their part.

 

Your questions are spot on!

You are right! This is the bottomline truth.

Spiritual abuse is quite real.......As is karmic repercussion, hence the takeover of Tibet by China due to Tibets' karma!

You know, Guru Norbu gives transmission openly....He never said "Do Ngondro first and we'll see" because he said that Guru Garab Dorje taught Dzogchen and gave transmission this way as well. I don't know if Mahamudra mandates Ngondro!

It would seem that Tilopa's Mahamudra instructions had ZERO to do with Ngondro practice which is why I believe the "new Ngondro preliminary" to be contrived. I understand that a pupil needs to have the right motive and such, that is a moot point.

I'm very leery of single individuals to whom people go to for emplowerments & teachings, hence the need to be critical in ones examination of a teacher or Guru, whether for the 6 yogas of Naropa or Mahamudra or Dzogchen transmission.

Stefos

 

@stefos: I’m not sure I understand your problem

Nisargadatta’s method from 2:45. If the method worked there was no need for the mind to ”overcome” anything. But it didn’t work for everyone. And since Nisargadatta is dead, I honestly think none of this really matters.

Hi Boy,

I would say that although he is "dead" per se that the teachings still exist and others besides him still teach!

Stefos

I Feel better in some ways. I'm a very sensetive person.

To answer the last question. I live in Metropolis, illinois. USA.

I realize that "mental illness" is a term used to describe a problem no one can fix. Only the individual can.

I am finding new confidence due to your support.

I feel like an island in the ocean sometimes. But the island is never alone it always has the sea.

I do feel that the taboos of tantric magic are involved. I have experience in such matters.

It involves taboo women.

I have reacted too drasticly in dealing with this due to the fact I feel unable to get away and worry about heath concerns when I should be facing these problems. Amitabha shows me the path of kindness in myself and the knowledge and healing I need. Paducah seems far from the truth I know and love. Filled with taboo and trouble. People talk about Satan openly and do not believe in absolute evil.

I believe that taboos govern my situation and denial of taboos will help me heal. Faith in the indescribable truth.

Adia

Hello,

Mental illness runs in my family so I understand your plight sir/miss/ma'am.

I'm sorry to hear that HOWEVER:

The good news is that you don't need to be "driven" shall we say by your mind.

No...There is a higher way: To be led by the Spirit!

Which Spirit? The Spirit of Jesus the Christ

You see, the mind is the mind......But that which is "behind" the mind is it's essence.

This essence was given by God. I'm not speaking about the "blank state" of mind.

No, I refer to your spirit.....It's this that has access to God.

Seek God by talking with God in a real way.

Jesus said "I will by no means cast you out" and as the Prophet Isaiah said "A bruised reed he will not break and a smouldering wick, he will not put out."

The demonic is very real....Only a fool would deny it hence possesion and things of this ilk.

Demonic oppression & possession can cause mental illness actually.

I'm not saying that this is the case for you.

I myself have been through demonic oppression...I speak from direct contact, not theory.

You see, the religion of Christianity is bent....The person of Jesus the Christ is not.

Be well and I'll be in prayer for you,

Stefos

"In your light, we see light"

Dispensed rarely on a well timed occasion.

I'm not sure if you are chastizing Tibetan Ice or are merely being rhetorical but....

This thread needs to move along!

So,Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj advocated a direct experience via bringing the mind back to perception of "what is."

However my experience has been that at a certain point, the dualistic mind wants to "overcome" the duality by jumping through intellectual hoops due to various arguments.

Comments?

Stefos

Hi Adia,

May I offer some advice?

I would suggest that you, if you are working, make time for yourself before, when at break at work, and after work to make time and simply watch your mind without following it!

You don't have to follow every thought you have!

Just observe your thoughts and emotions and let them release themselves.

I mean release any negativity.

Insofar as your spirit is concerned, we are all spirits having a bodily experience! No fear.

Any questions please DO NOT HESITATE to post here openly if you want or to post privately to me....I'll be happy to assist.

In the meantime.......Relax and stop worrying because your worry will do nothing for you or anyone else.

Be well!

Stefos

Yes, the Self (tadekam) is not the antahakarana (chitta, ahamkara, etc). Very nicely put there...

Any attempts to "capture" the Self in dualistic terms will naturally lead to contradictions and errors because there is never an elimination of the aberrations (vrittis).

 

Dr. Ramakrishna Puligandla, in his book "Jnana Yoga - The Way of Knowledge" describes this very nicely. He says "the mind is a field of objects". It is phenomenal, and it (since it) has a beginning and an end. The Self is not that.

Hari OM TAT SAT

Phenomeno & Noumena constitute Name & Form/Things of the mind

When we see the seer we realize that we have imprisoned ourselves.

The point is to abide in that pristine awareness which is.

Homage!

Hi Dwai,

Pranams to you sir! MORE!!!!

The Apostle Paul---- "Bless rather, Bless and do not curse"

Stefos

You are right. I am nothing. Why does nothing bother you so much?

The issue isn't me...It's your mindstream.

If you're an actual Dzogchenpa then it will concern you.

You're expressing anger.....Say the wrong thing to the wrong person and you might end up in "hell on earth."

I would spare you that.

Language/speech is reflective of one's consciousness, be it conscious decision or non-conscious reaction.

That's all sir.........I wrote it for your (relatively speaking of course) benefit.

Have a great evening!

Stefos

From http://weeraperuma.com/krishnamurti.html

 

Then again you post a post which lumped Christianity, Adaita Vedanta, and Dzogchen all together under the aegis of "self removal" into the same sentence. How ludicrous! And where exactly does Dzogchen teach practices to " remove the self"? And even if you called Dzogchen "Buddhist", there is no little "self" in Buddhism so why would they even have practices to remove it? All he Buddhist teachings say that even if you tried to find the self, you will not find it.

If you properly quoted what I said and then asked me what I meant, you would have received a proper answer.

Therefore, you will receive no answer other than "re-read my post and think about what I've particularly posted."

Also, In Buddhism there is a "self" it's called the relative "self" called Tibetan Ice, Stefos, John, Bob, etc.

When dealing with Ultimate reality however, that's a different story.

Stefos

Sometimes people need a good kick in the ass to wake them up. That's why there are wrathful deities in buddhism. That's why there are gurus that shoot and attack their disciples. That's why the zen masters hit their students with sticks. That's why Buddhists yell out PHAT when they are most calm. That why Tilopa and Naropa behaved like lunatics. That's why the Bon masters are feared, their lunacy serves as a testament of their realization.

 

Don't believe that a fake loving attitude will do anybody any good. It's a form of hypocrisy.

 

Life loves you with all its being. But it still lets you get sick, suffer and die.

 

Save your advice for someone whom is willing to listen..

Hi T.I. ,

I understand your perspective but your not enlightened!

You are not a Geshe, Lama nor a Rinpoche nor a Siddha nor a Mahasiddha.......... you are No - thing.

Therefore you should change your attitude because it doesn't reflect compassion but anger....period.

Now, save that lesson for yourself.

Stefos

it is in expressing the self that we find the self.

 

Edit: actually better to say "become" the self

Hi MooNiNite,

I respectfully disagree.

What do you mean by "expressing the self?" How "does that look like?"

The Self eliminates the self and that happens when there is no personal "self" not Self (with a capital S).

This is what teachers of Advaita Vedanta teach....In Buddhist circles, Shunya is pushed...A state of void is the ultimate.

Other Buddhist schools say "No, Shunya is not the ultimate....Shunya and it's correlate presence or Pure consciousness are."

There are many schools of "Buddhism" with different ends or "fruit" in view and they don't all agree.

Be well!

Stefos

That guy is so wrong about Raja yoga that perhaps he should blame his ignorance on the scholars from whom he obtained his misinformation. He is a real mouthpiece, isn't he?

 

Got kundalini backwards, doesn't he? Kundalini wipes out the self. It does not require destruction of the little self before it manifests. Case in point, all the kundalini active people with bad experiences while their self is being attacked, subdued and disintegrated.. Ellie Collie, etc etc etc

 

Krishnamurti is a big waste it time. Read about UG Krishnamurti instead.

 

And, any teacher might say to forget about powers and siddhis while learning the beginner states, but any teacher that can't demonstrate any siddhis should not be teaching.

 

I don't know why you keep bringing up non buddhist fakirs in the buddhist forum. It is almost like your behavior stems from a lack of confidence and understanding in all schools and you are seeking someone to tell you the truth. Nobody can do that for you, you have to discover the truth for yourself.

 

Im not really interested in furthering any discussion with you for I find you to be so scattered and lacking in control and perspicacity that you would inevitably waste everyone's time. You can't get there by discussing philosophy, especially crappy philosophy which is not grounded in experience. Let the scholars be, they are only parrots. And, like someone else told you, pick one cake and eat it.

 

And dropping the self is not the point. That is a form of nihilism. The self will drop on its own if only you don't succumb to fear and let it drop when the real experience comes calling.. But dropping the self doesn't necessarily cause the real experience to arise, else everyone who falls asleep would be enlightened.

Hi Tibetan Ice,

Have you really read Krishnamurti's dialogues or examined the biographies written about him by ofthers?

I don't think you have or else you would have responded in a more comprehensive way.

Also, You are very antagonistic in your communications....I suggest you change your tone sir.

I will not hesitate to communicate to moderators about your attitude of agression.

Discreditng Krishnamurti is something one can only do if one has studied and lived "the teachings" which you have not demonstrated to me sufficiently.

Finally, just as mentioned to 3bob in the "Hinduism" sub-forum, I can post anything I'd like to as this is not a "pay to post" forum nor is it your particular monopoly and most importantly Krishnamurti had dialogues with both Buddhist scholars and Chogyam Trungpa and others, so this is very relevant to "Buddhism."

I will no longer conceded to any person's demands here or anywhere.....PERIOD.

If what I post has relevance, the post and ensuing communication will stay.

Stefos

Hi Tibetan Ice,

Sir, I believe you are a male so I address you from this understanding, I'd like to share something with you:

When we share something, we should give the information clearly, and immediately step back.

If the person we've shared with is interested then we continue sharing lovingly (selfless love), if not we wish them well and finish the sharing.

Allowing ourselves to yield to baseness does no good for ourselves nor for others.

My experience has shown me that people who are non-spiritual & fault finders position themselves in an antagonists' role/position to deliberately "push buttons" and provoke, typically not caring about the other person at all.

I'm done!

Have a great day tomorrow

Stefos

Interesting post but problematic!

Why?

In regards to "enlightenment," Krishnamurti stated that, in regards to REAL Kundalini "awakening" for example, the following:

"Absolutely NO sense of the self" and

"When the self is not."

Please check it out below:

Why do I quote him?

Good question....here's the good answer:

When it comes to enlightenment, we approach it from the sense of "me" "attaining" instead of "no me."

"Western esoteric systems" If they are power focused, Tantric systems that actively push siddhi attainment (Some actually make it a point believe it or not!) and Magickal systems and spiritualities of this ilk, engender self seeking power which builds up the ego causing conflict on multiple levels.

It's one thing to expand consciousness to "embrace all" but a different matter to flush the self away, as it were.

Power, siddhis and even the "wish for enlightenment" are distortions.

It's not only Krishnamurti but any teacher who's honest has said "forget power and siddhic attainment(s)."

To me, Biblical Christianity which is about selfless love, not the flippant word "love" commonly touted left & right, Krishnamurti, Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta along with Kashmiri Shaivaism are correct insofar as "self removal" are concerned.

We, if we are honest, want power. That's not the point, dropping the self is the point.

Stefos

There's an old story about a rich father who's house was on fire. His children were so caught up in their games that they didn't notice and wouldn't leave the house. So the father told them there were amazing carriages outside: to one, he said it was a goat drawn carriage, to another, a deer drawn carriage, and to the third, a horse drawn carriage. The children became so excited they ran outside to see the carriages.

 

So who's lie is the best? The one that gets you out of the burning house.

Hi forestofemptiness,

Thanks for sharing.

You do have an obvious point however:

The issue here is that Shankaracharya nixed the 4 schools I've mentioned which constitutes every form of known Buddhism today except Theravada & Dzogchen and perhaps Mahamudra If it's based on Madhyamika thought then I stand corrected.

Furthermore, Of the 18-24 ancient Buddhist schools none exist except a modified school which today is called Theravada.

The rest have died out.

A big part of me is VERY leery about what is touted as Buddhist, as none of the ancient schools exist.

Only syncretistic expressions exist.

The pali "canon" being compiled around the 1st centure A.D./C.E.

Stefos

choose one cake and eat it...

I assume you mean: Run with Dzogchen/Mahamudra or Advaita Vedanta

Yes, you're right......however an open minded & intelligent person would consider differing viewpoints

other than his or her own....as in the case of Sankaracharya here.

Btw, the above sentence was not meant as a "dig" on your person.

I don't like attacking people but I will healthily debate a position.

Have a great weekend!

Stefos

UPDATE:

Due to the wrong perspective conveyed from my original posting, phrasing has been changed

Hi everyone,

I heard some time ago about Sankara having a large hand in getting Buddhism out of India.

I bought many copies of the Brahma sutras with the commentary of Sankaracharya.

Interesting to find out, he essentially "defeated" the philosophy of the Buddhist schools of his day:

Vijnanavadins, Sautrantikas, Yogacharas and Madhyamikas.

The Theravada school is not even mentioned nor is Dzogchen or Mahamudra which is

very interesting....I wonder why. Could it be that Mahamudra is based on Madhyamika?

I do not believe that Dzogchen is.

What are YOUR comments regarding Sankara and his refutation of these Buddhist schools of thought?

Stefos

P.S. I understand that Sankara acknowledged Sunya but he said "there is more beyond that" essentially which is why he refuted the Buddhist schools he did.

Interestingly, both Dzogchen and Mahamudra speak of the "nature of mind" as opposed to the mind itself. To me, this is non other than Sat-Chit-Anand.

Stefos,

 

1. We never had a "blowout" in the past or recently as far as I'm concerned.

2. Apparently you see no problem with another round of dilution and or violence taking place in the Hindu Forum whereas I do.

(which btw. has already happened in this string)

3. And if you do not see any problem with such dubious dilutions then it follows that that way of thinking also eliminates the need for any of the other sub-forums being that your type of thinking would also apply to them, which I believe many would disagree with; thus and again I say take the Buddhist or other forms related to the comparison process either to the Buddhist forum or general forum where in can be hashed out per-same.

Hi 3bob,

I understand your perspective and respect it sir.

I will concede to your request but still feel that this analysis could happen here.

Have a nice night,

Stefos

Hi everyone,

What's going on with the United States and spirituality insofar as dating is concerned?

I don't quite get it:

THE bent seems to be a big financial thing...as if finances will always be there when in fact they might not. Of course, having finances is needed however it seems to be THE goal in the U.S.

My experience has been that there are not many spiritual women and the one's that do exist seem to be kind of groupies, per se, around a spiritual leader. In other words, they are not grounded and are on a "spiritual high" of sorts.

My perspective is that if we are multi-dimensional beings:

Body

Brain

Mind

Various Koshas or "Bodies" per se

Then the sane person would consider all aspects of reality and not just a niche such as Spirituality ONLY. Etc.

Furthermore, I really wonder what the heck do people think about if they think about things?

Everything is subject to change so, to me, our security lies in the eternal not the ephemeral.

Ex. Money, career or job, intelligence level (it's true!!!), etc.

Finally, What exactly is a modern woman and what is HER perspective on men?

(I would like a lady to answer this please)

It seems as though if an individual respects a woman she doesn't know how to handle it.

This has been my experience with women in the U.S. as of recent.

I have not dated because I can see that security to most women is an exponential amount of money and typically they want to have children and be stay home mothers.

Admittedly, this "stay home" mindset or its darker "sugar daddy" mindset put me off.

Comments please...

Thank you!

Stefos

I think the consternation is rooted in the cacophony that usually ensues once Buddhist concepts are discussed

Hi Dwai,

This gentleman has been having issues since we had a bit of "blowout" some time ago.

I don't care if he doesn't like it.

He didn't pay for the server on this site, firstly and second, I have done nothing wrong to the man. Absolutely ZERO.

Tell me if I did and I'll publicly apologize for my infraction.

Thank you and Be well sir!

Stefos

Why not be polite (aka the noble 8 fold path) and investigate the Buddhist perspective via the Buddhist forum?

That is what any respectful Buddhist student or enlightened Lama would do...

Btw and also, the free-for-all-probable-mash-up-mess you allude to is available via the often bloody general forum.

3bob,

I AM being polite and I WAS being polite....honestly.

You are taking things I post as if I posted them in an agressive mode and I never meant it as such.........Sorry, it's your perception sir, not mine.

Furthermore, I was referring to doing a comparative spiritual/religious study of both systems concurrently.

Examining both beliefs via similar, IF possible, terminology..seeing where they agree and disagree.

There is nothing "wrong" with that and IMHO it should be encouraged in order to promote a healthy understanding of a particular spirituality's worldview for those who don't hold it.

Stefos

P.S. I'm not a New Ager and therefore won't mish-mash things together, I assure you.

Have a wonderful evening and a great tomorrow.

Buddhist terminology, interpretations and or meanings don't apply at a Hindu forum, its a big mistake to think so...

Not necessarily!

Why not investigate this from the Buddhist perspective?

As long as clear understanding is there, there is no issue.

This is America where I live and thinking IS encouraged and promoted.

Go Ahead Everybody!

Stefos

I think I AM THAT Is deceptive. Some of us reading it walked away thinking that the point was to sustain a feeling of I AM. Big mistake.

Hi forestofempitness,

I understand what you're saying................A book is a book and it CAN work on people actually.

However, the best thing is to find a Guru.

After all, a teacher is kind of indispensible.

Stefos

I recently had three lucid dreams in one night.

In each one, I was faced with a situation and began to react in a very familiar, habitual, and conditioned pattern (one involved sex and two involved violence).

And in each one, as I began to fall into the habitual pattern I became fully lucid of the dream state and my reaction.

I immediately told myself that this was not how I wanted to lead my life and that I did not want to waste such a precious opportunity (lucidity). In each circumstance I completely change my reaction to the situation.

Good stuff!

Dang....I have dreams and I need to gain more control of them.

They are not fully under my control....yet.......Muhahahahahahahhahahah (Extended Halloween laugh)

Stefos