The answer lies in the India/Nepal/Tibet Himalaya Regions afterall.. and definitely NOT in china/taiwan..

[Aaron]

I know it, directly. This is why Buddhism is not a religion. It's not from the words of a powerful god, who may have bliss and immense expansion. There is so much which comes out of the light illuminating the formless unconscious that can fool one, because it can feel so good and deep, so real.

 

All religions, even Shamanistic traditions teach about an all powerful God. The experience for the highly trained shaman or theist comes in communing with the formless realms. It comes from the state I spoke of when I talked about the formless realms and the impressions that are in the alayavijnana (storehouse consciousness) or even collective unconscious. Without "right view", the first of the 8 fold noble path that you mentioned, these impressions, so blissful, so sweet, seemingly pure, one attaches to as ultimate Self. This is a subtle, deep dogma.

 

Anyway... this is what I talk about, how non-dogmatic D.O. is. At the same time, since these impressions are inherently empty, even these bliss states, these "I Am's" and they arise dependent with everything else, they are true as well, as everything is true, because nothing is true. But, what is the truth that liberates one from truths? Not an all subsuming truth, but an all emptying truth.

 

Anyway, you believe your experiences reify a supreme God, beyond all concepts, etc. You are very attached to this way of seeing and interpreting your experience, it grants you plenty of peace. But, it doesn't give you omniscience into the way things happen, as you're subsumed by the peace, you don't care to investigate deeper, you feel enlightened! So, when the cosmos dissolves, you will absorb into this state of bliss and light, loose consciousness, and be reborn again in the next cosmic cycle to do it over again. Which is fine, it's a dance! There's nothing wrong with it as the Shaivites like to say, the blissful dance of Shiva. But, I for one am not into unconscious recycling. I don't want to be subsumed by an all absorbing principle. To not be re-absorbed at the end of a cosmic eon is called attaining (sanskrit) samyaksambodhi known as having the attainment of (tibetan) kadag chenpo. This means one has seen through all states, has no anchor, is not attached to even the light, not attached to the experience of not being attached to the light, not being attached to a being who is having the experience of not being attached to the light, so one is not even attached to non-attachment. The realization of D.O. is absolutely complete, without residue. All beginningless causes for bondage are turned into conditions for manifesting consciously and endlessly for the sake of sentient beings as all selfish obscurations have been cured, including the monistic and ignorant ideal that all things are god and "gods will."

 

I hope this helps someone along the way. Even though it will most likely be deflected by you Twinner by saying that I'm not steeped enough in the truth of the 8 fold noble path on a continuous basis. Which I will just agree with.

 

 

Hello Vaj,

 

You are assuming much. If you had read any of my other posts where I explain my concept of God, you would understand I rarely ever call "It" God, because I think the mere mentioning of that phrase engenders a predisposition to exactly what you're explaining.

 

You assume much, but have no proof for what you assume, except for hypothesis. Who has come back from the grave and said, "I have broken free of the cycle of Dharma!" If they did, then they would prove that they haven't, because merely by being present in this life we are a part of that cycle.

 

My argument is that there is nothing and everything. I do not advocate any salvation from Dharma or sins, but rather urge others to seek God within them and without and by finding God they can understand the nature of their existence. I have experienced this, which is why I say I am enlightened, but really there is no enlightenment, there just is. If one presses the issue, then we are enlightened now, just not aware.

 

Remember that even believing there is no truth is a truth. To hold something to be true or false is the first sign of attachment. Nothing is sacred, nor infallible. Merely by being infallible, something must also be fallible, for the experience of both is intertwined. Merely by being aware, one must also be unaware. That is the truth that is also a lie, because truth and lies are intertwined and cannot be separated, even if one defines them.

 

The sacred is profane. Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Hold nothing to your bosom and nothing can be taken away. That is the truth of detachment which is misunderstood. In order to be detached one must also be attached. The experience is intertwined. If you claim detachment, merely by claiming detachment you are attached to it. There is no such thing as detachment, there just is.

 

It has taken me some time to understand this and I don't presume that you will understand it overnight, or maybe you have an intellectual understanding but reject it. That is fine.

 

When I say you do not need Buddha, it is because Buddha has not taught anything you do not already know. You do not need to be taught if you are willing to pay attention. By paying attention you can learn without having to be taught.

 

The key is to understand that there can be no void without substance. There can be no life without death. If we do not die, then how can we ever be alive? When one ceases to return to this world, they have not broken free of Dharma, but rather they have returned to the original state, a state that did not exist before, but has always been. If someone comes to you and says, "I have broken free of Dharma" they are not lying, but they are not telling the truth either.

 

Will I be gone when I die? No. Will I be here? I do not know. If I have learned my lesson, then I am sure I will not be me anymore, but I will still be. The fact that I will no be Aaron, does not mean that I will not be, because Aaron is already a part of everything that exists. Aaron is also nothing. When Aaron dies he will cease to be, but I will still be, just I will not be as I am.

 

I hope that helps to explain a bit more about what I believe. Just remember that none of this can be true, unless it is also a lie.

 

Aaron

Edited June 4, 2011 by Twinner

[Seth Ananda]

What a volatile and interesting thread.

 

I have to say I find myself agreeing with several differing points in part or more.

 

There are so many areas I'd like to respond to but it would take all day, so ill just try to organize my various thoughts here.

 

I am surprised to see Gold mirroring so many of my thoughts.

 

I do not believe the Guru devotion thing is at all necessary, and really I think it gets in the way. Its an archaic religious tool, stemming from very poor country's, designed to support the Guru so he does not have to work for himself.

Some will naturally object that [some] Guru's work far harder than the rest of us, spreading the Dharma and organizing charities. This is true. Lama Zopa for instance sleeps 3-4 hours a night, does his practices and spends the rest of his time working himself to the bone.

My question is How many of his students will achieve any really deep level of realization? [iMHO none] sure, many many will hear about Dharma teachings from his work, but what will that do? A bunch of westerners will take up hours a day of chanting Tibetan mantras, visualizing and making offerings to obscure Tibetan deity's.

Sure, these practices can give 'Many' experiences but how is real clarity of mind and awareness developing without a genuine relationship of open conversation and Debate.

 

I personally believe [my dogma lol] that all the subtle flaws in thinking and observation can only be cleared or made obvious In debate/conversation/pointing out sessions. I also believe that That is the most Important element in any path of development.

Some will say that that is what a Guru does with the student. Well, I have several responses to this:

 

1. Some Guru's do this. Nissargadata springs to mind. He encouraged open battle and total honesty in his Inquiry teachings, with no worship. to him Guru just meant teacher. I am not saying he was right in his conclusions, or that his system was complete, but I do appreciate his way.

 

2. Some Gurus look like they are doing this but are not. Most are building their personal empire, getting ever more students. The more students = the less chance that one or hopefully a small handful of students will really 'get' it.

If a Guru theoretically really has wisdom and deep understanding, then she can bring about realization's just through conversing with her students. If she just has a few close students [that are more like friends than sycophants], then by working with them over a decent period of time, a great flowering will happen within her students.

 

3. If you are desperate to win the Guru's Holy favor/attention/approval... then how is this grounds for an open conversation. Your side of any conversation at least is clouded with the desire to please, which makes you want to say the right thing. Honest Inquiry cannot happen in an atmosphere like this.

 

4. Many Guru's In entrenched traditions like Tibetan Buddhism have real wisdom, but the reason [i believe] that they are able to pass it on to so few students, is because of the religious/devotional nature of the Guru relationship in said tradition.

Many cannot see the chains caused by their own traditions.

 

5. Having an uncompromising desire for truth is [again I believe] the only way to reach the 'Truth'.

If you suddenly say OK, this Guru 'IS' the embodiment of supreme Truth [and he may well be] you are handing over something precious. Too precious to give away in my opinion. Its handing over the responsibility for your own path, and the ability to think and question for oneself. Thinking 'he says it, therefore it is true,' is totally different to looking deeply into the subject yourself, to see if it could have truth to it, then having an actual realization if there is.

 

6. I am not against studying with any Guru myself, as long as I can enter the relationship as a potential friend, and be totally open in my questioning and relating with them. Ritualized formalities are totally useless in today's world, and only serve to create hierarchical structures. Also when I am no longer learning, or gaining insight, then I will leave. No life long student Oaths for me.

 

7. Plenty of people with no followers or any wisdom at all, organize charities, so the guru structure is not at all needed for this function.

 

 

I will try to condense these thoughts into one statement.

If the Guru's who actually have something of value, threw out all the religious/formal rubbish, stopped the expansionism of their system, and just met a handful of local people, developed close friendly relationships with them and engaged them in total honest exchanges of Ideas and debate, thus leading them towards realization, we would hare far more deeply enlightened people on Earth today.

 

Imagine if Namkhai just picked 8 people and had them over for dinner and philosophy every night for the next few years. After he had enlightened them [if you believe he is enlightened] he could then invite 8 more. Whats more, those 8 would go out and share their Individual perspectives on what they had realized as well.

 

If you believe the Legends, Buddha was able to Liberate many with just a few sentences. Some of those people were Brahmins. They were obviously open minded Yogi's, willing to question their own traditions [a rare quality] and is something many Buddhists themselves could learn from.

 

Seth.

[goldisheavy]

Hello Vaj,

 

You are assuming much. If you had read any of my other posts where I explain my concept of God, you would understand I rarely ever call "It" God, because I think the mere mentioning of that phrase engenders a predisposition to exactly what you're explaining.

 

You assume much, but have no proof for what you assume, except for hypothesis. Who has come back from the grave and said, "I have broken free of the cycle of Dharma!" If they did, then they would prove that they haven't, because merely by being present in this life we are a part of that cycle.

 

My argument is that there is nothing and everything. I do not advocate any salvation from Dharma or sins, but rather urge others to seek God within them and without and by finding God they can understand the nature of their existence. I have experienced this, which is why I say I am enlightened, but really there is no enlightenment, there just is. If one presses the issue, then we are enlightened now, just not aware.

 

Remember that even believing there is no truth is a truth. To hold something to be true or false is the first sign of attachment. Nothing is sacred, nor infallible. Merely by being infallible, something must also be fallible, for the experience of both is intertwined. Merely by being aware, one must also be unaware. That is the truth that is also a lie, because truth and lies are intertwined and cannot be separated, even if one defines them.

 

The sacred is profane. Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Hold nothing to your bosom and nothing can be taken away. That is the truth of detachment which is misunderstood. In order to be detached one must also be attached. The experience is intertwined. If you claim detachment, merely by claiming detachment you are attached to it. There is no such thing as detachment, there just is.

 

It has taken me some time to understand this and I don't presume that you will understand it overnight, or maybe you have an intellectual understanding but reject it. That is fine.

 

When I say you do not need Buddha, it is because Buddha has not taught anything you do not already know. You do not need to be taught if you are willing to pay attention. By paying attention you can learn without having to be taught.

 

The key is to understand that there can be no void without substance. There can be no life without death. If we do not die, then how can we ever be alive? When one ceases to return to this world, they have not broken free of Dharma, but rather they have returned to the original state, a state that did not exist before, but has always been. If someone comes to you and says, "I have broken free of Dharma" they are not lying, but they are not telling the truth either.

 

Will I be gone when I die? No. Will I be here? I do not know. If I have learned my lesson, then I am sure I will not be me anymore, but I will still be. The fact that I will no be Aaron, does not mean that I will not be, because Aaron is already a part of everything that exists. Aaron is also nothing. When Aaron dies he will cease to be, but I will still be, just I will not be as I am.

 

I hope that helps to explain a bit more about what I believe. Just remember that none of this can be true, unless it is also a lie.

 

Aaron

 

This is an amazing post. It's good for my reflection. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

[Vajrahridaya]

That's almost right. I don't think people have to be perfectly enlightened for this to work, but it's true they do need to have a reasonable degree of wisdom and inner development.

 

To promote learning people must be able to taste the fruits of their actions. And to enable this, dictators of all kinds have to be disempowered. Do you understand why?

 

Well, Hierarchies naturally develop around the person with the most personal power. What is wrong with this is when the person with the most personal power thinks in absolutist terms and stops seeing relativity is when darkness and stagnation sets in. When the person is selfish and corrupt by this power with the attachment to self, without seeing dependent origination and thinks that all things revolve around an independent source that he or she "is" or "is" the messenger of.

 

So yes... I see and understand why. A group leader must understand that he/she is not greater than or less than those that he is leading, and he or she is leading only to help others see their own potential for leadership directly so that they may lead themselves.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

You are assuming much. If you had read any of my other posts where I explain my concept of God, you would understand I rarely ever call "It" God, because I think the mere mentioning of that phrase engenders a predisposition to exactly what you're explaining.

 

You assume much, but have no proof for what you assume, except for hypothesis. Who has come back from the grave and said, "I have broken free of the cycle of Dharma!" If they did, then they would prove that they haven't, because merely by being present in this life we are a part of that cycle.

 

My argument is that there is nothing and everything. I do not advocate any salvation from Dharma or sins, but rather urge others to seek God within them and without and by finding God they can understand the nature of their existence. I have experienced this, which is why I say I am enlightened, but really there is no enlightenment, there just is. If one presses the issue, then we are enlightened now, just not aware.

 

Remember that even believing there is no truth is a truth. To hold something to be true or false is the first sign of attachment. Nothing is sacred, nor infallible. Merely by being infallible, something must also be fallible, for the experience of both is intertwined. Merely by being aware, one must also be unaware. That is the truth that is also a lie, because truth and lies are intertwined and cannot be separated, even if one defines them.

 

The sacred is profane. Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Hold nothing to your bosom and nothing can be taken away. That is the truth of detachment which is misunderstood. In order to be detached one must also be attached. The experience is intertwined. If you claim detachment, merely by claiming detachment you are attached to it. There is no such thing as detachment, there just is.

 

It has taken me some time to understand this and I don't presume that you will understand it overnight, or maybe you have an intellectual understanding but reject it. That is fine.

 

When I say you do not need Buddha, it is because Buddha has not taught anything you do not already know. You do not need to be taught if you are willing to pay attention. By paying attention you can learn without having to be taught.

 

The key is to understand that there can be no void without substance. There can be no life without death. If we do not die, then how can we ever be alive? When one ceases to return to this world, they have not broken free of Dharma, but rather they have returned to the original state, a state that did not exist before, but has always been. If someone comes to you and says, "I have broken free of Dharma" they are not lying, but they are not telling the truth either.

 

Will I be gone when I die? No. Will I be here? I do not know. If I have learned my lesson, then I am sure I will not be me anymore, but I will still be. The fact that I will no be Aaron, does not mean that I will not be, because Aaron is already a part of everything that exists. Aaron is also nothing. When Aaron dies he will cease to be, but I will still be, just I will not be as I am.

 

I hope that helps to explain a bit more about what I believe. Just remember that none of this can be true, unless it is also a lie.

 

Aaron

 

Then silly boy, we are saying the same thing in different words.

 

I also use the term "god" internally as a metaphor only, not as an abiding self existent being, but merely as a metaphor for everything... as a metaphor for the mass of inter-dependence that has no beginning nor end.

 

How'd you get that I was saying anything other? I just say that Buddhism teaches this with the most clarity, if you listen to the Buddhas and not the lost versions of the followers. EDIT: But the followers that became leaders themselves, leaders of themselves, by self transcendence.

 

Anyway... to not know where your personal mind stream will go is also an ignorance. If you are identifying with the all, as a self abiding all. You aren't getting what emptiness means as well, as there is no inherent void either, just like there is no real emptiness as void and emptiness do not denote the same thing and often I find a mistranslation of the term shunya or shunyata.

 

Enlightenment engenders a knowledge of the general direction that your personal mind-stream is going, you've also transcended mere earthly perception while being completely eminent. You will have seen directly into space and the lineages of fully enlightened beings that will not be re-absorbed at the end of this cosmic cycle but will emerge in the next cycle as completely "awake"... which is what Buddha means... "awake" in order to help with positive influence, once again. You will never sleep again in bliss, even at the end of a cosmic cycle. You will be awake in bliss. As they say, "god is in the details."

 

So, if you get that, then we're saying the same thing.

 

Edited for punctuation and expansion of concepts for the sake of clarity.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Don't worry, I'm also a silly boy.

[goldisheavy]

I recently found something surprising. I realized that in some ways the people who think similarly to me are the Sikhs. The last Sikh Guru says that the teaching itself is now the Guru, and there is to be no more human Gurus after his death. I think he was really onto something there. While I have no idea what the Sikhism is all about, and I have no interest in becoming one, I can really appreciate many things I've read about the formation and evolution of the Sikh religion.

 

I always feel a little crazy when I speak because I wonder is it really true that I am alone in my thoughts? I'm glad people like Seth and many others sometimes come out of the woodwork to share my thoughts. That's also the same reason when I read about the Sikhs I felt not so different and insane anymore.

 

The debate is a beautiful thing, in my opinion. That's why I am also against the extreme peace or extreme demands of decorum, because extreme peace would discourage debates, which can sometimes get heated.

 

So, at this point, unlike in the paragraphs above where I only thank people I agree with, now I'll also thank everyone, including people whom I have disagreed with in the past.

[goldisheavy]

Well, Hierarchies naturally develop around the person with the most personal power.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here by "naturally." This dynamic occurs only thanks to a certain kind of conditioning that we tend to share (some of us share this conditioning more equally than others). The conditioning basically says that someone has to be stronger than someone else. So it then says, I'll try for the top spot, and if I fail, I'll take the next step below. If I still fail, I try one step below that, and so on. It's the way monkeys and many other animals behave. But not all animals. It's not a universal law. It's a type of conditioning that prizes power over wisdom.

 

It leads to the suppression of the weak. Often the weak people are also very wise, but they just don't have the energy to start fighting, or their wisdom while of serious potential benefit to society is not strong enough to overcome the challenges posed by the power brokers.

 

This is why I have finally decided to develop personal power. I realized that if I just hope for the good graces of the power brokers to set things straight, I'll be waiting for a long time. So then I decided I will become very very powerful. I'm going to promote wisdom and democracy and flatter power hierarchies, but I will use my power if someone gets in my way. I will mix myself with shit to achieve my vision, if that's what it takes. I will sacrifice my honor and my reputation. I am taking this extreme measure because the situation in my opinion is an extremely unhealthy one.

 

If I can just be sure that many many people feel personally powerful and there is a strong network of peers that can stand up for itself, and withstand the assaults of the traditionalists, tribalists and the petty power brokers, then my job is done and I can put down my mind weapons.

 

Ultimately I want everyone to be happy and free, and not to suffer under the yoke of some despot, be it a gross despot such as a CEO, or the so-called "president" or "prime minister" or a more subtle despot, such as the Guru.

 

I believe our political issues and our spiritual issues are deeply intertwined. Yes, that's why indeed I believe that we all have to move closer and closer to personal, freely acquired, and freely manifested wisdom and power to finally find ourselves living in a society we enjoy living in.

 

This is why I don't bother with political activism or revolutions. It's all a big waste of time if our culture is not ready. The real work happens at the level of the mind, one person at a time.

 

But even on this plane, there are many people who either consciously or unconsciously try to interfere, even on this forum.

 

What is wrong with this is when the person with the most personal power thinks in absolutist terms and stops seeing relativity is when darkness and stagnation sets in.

 

A relativist is fully capable of creating darkness. Aesthetic concerns still retain their actuality to a relativist. There is no philosophical stance that guarantees success. That is why we need each other. That's why a group of peers who are strong in critical thinking and strong in spiritual development can help keep each other healthy.

 

When responsibility is shared more evenly, the burden for every individual is light. Plus, every individual feels the weight of one's decisions.

 

Whereas if someone is responsible for your progress, guess what? You can't learn. The feedback is cut off. If something negative happens, it's not your fault. It's an unhealthy loop. It's blindness.

 

Imagine a society that's really screwed up, but a dictator uses personal power concentration to set may things right by force. How will such society learn its lessons? They won't! What such society will experience is that no matter what wrong they commit, it all turns out OK because there is a dictator fixing things behind their backs. And this is assuming a benevolent dictator.

 

When the person is selfish and corrupt by this power with the attachment to self, without seeing dependent origination and thinks that all things revolve around an independent source that he or she "is" or "is" the messenger of.

 

So yes... I see and understand why. A group leader must understand that he/she is not greater than or less than those that he is leading, and he or she is leading only to help others see their own potential for leadership directly so that they may lead themselves.

 

We don't need leaders. Why should we be lead somewhere specific? We aren't sheep.

Edited June 4, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

I like your sense of relativity, a direct insight and understanding of interdependence/emptiness really comes from you.

 

 

I will try to condense these thoughts into one statement.

If the Guru's who actually have something of value, threw out all the religious/formal rubbish, stopped the expansionism of their system, and just met a handful of local people, developed close friendly relationships with them and engaged them in total honest exchanges of Ideas and debate, thus leading them towards realization, we would hare far more deeply enlightened people on Earth today.

 

Imagine if Namkhai just picked 8 people and had them over for dinner and philosophy every night for the next few years. After he had enlightened them [if you believe he is enlightened] he could then invite 8 more. Whats more, those 8 would go out and share their Individual perspectives on what they had realized as well.

 

If you believe the Legends, Buddha was able to Liberate many with just a few sentences. Some of those people were Brahmins. They were obviously open minded Yogi's, willing to question their own traditions [a rare quality] and is something many Buddhists themselves could learn from.

 

Seth.

 

 

This is exactly how ChNNR started, just having some students from the university he taught at in Italy come over and have dinner with him and have regular informal conversations. He as ralis say's, is not really a big fan of formalities, but at the same time, they are sometimes needed when all of a sudden there is a big group, like the chair has to be higher so that everyone can see, and if there's a whole bunch of people, it's hard to have a real conversation so there has to be a lecture. But, he does go question and answer sessions. Swami Muktananda and Gurumayi also do this. Gurumayi has spoken against the formalities institutionalized by SYDA many times. I've been in private courters with her and a few people, she is very down to Earth and human, as is ChNNR, but the difference is that it's all joy, grounded bliss, it's not just high up spaced out jargon, it's like something you feel from the tips of your toes to the tops of your head. I think Gurumayi stopped doing tours because of all this formality bull shit and she just wants people to get it for themselves. ChNNR also wants this... this enlightened communalism is exactly what is desired. To think they were out to just build some sort of empire around them is really just seeing the natural development around a person who really lives in and knows directly what's going on and has no fear in expressing it, and due to people being effected by this, that kind of overly externalized devotion just manifests, and eventually becomes a formal system. Both Muktananda, Gurumayi and ChNNR have spoken against this and Muktananda used to be like... "Get up, stop touching my feet, God is in you!" But, due to time honored tradition, people wouldn't stop, so... he's like, "fuck it! I'll just love them and those who are ready to get it will get it, but I'll try!" Muktananda broke tons of Shankara's rules for the sake of reaching more people and giving people more power. ChNNR does the same thing, which is why he is sometimes looked as controversial to Traditionalists. Now I know tons of students of Gurumayi and Muktananda, and they are amazingly self empowered, compassionate and well loved by the people that know them. Hierarchies naturally form though, if they are abused, sometimes it's just not the Guru's fault, at other times it is. It's very relative and nuanced. One cannot use generalizations.

 

I also think it takes more than a dinner with a liberated being to attain liberation though, generally speaking, lifetimes of condensed garbage take some time to sift through. If you are open, you'll have a liberating experience, then you'll know that you want to sift through the garbage, which is what the lineage practices are for. The traditions, which naturally you will ritualize as you have to work, etc. so you'll do your focus on the elements, mantras and mudras in the morning at a certain time before work, do the yoga postures to clean out the energies. During the Buddhas time, and his disciples time, as he was a samyakasambuddha (wheel turning buddha), his students at that time were already pre-determined through meritous karmas (which is inter-dependent causation, action, connectivity... whatever) to be his students in order to keep his teachings spinning as the first wheel.

 

I can just hear people saying, "oh he's using these words, he's religious, it's a dogma.) If you don't understand the words, please look them up and unpack them, see the details of what I'm getting at, not just the surface, because when you judge the surface, you're not getting to the intention.

 

Seth,

 

I like your sense of relativity. Yes, if more people were enlightened, there'd be less of a need for Guru's. At the same time, how do you know that the teachings that Zopa Rinpoches students aren't getting enlightened from the practices he is giving. I can speak from personal experience, that the practices from these enlightened Rinpoches are very, very powerful. But most people dismiss them because they haven't practiced them, see the surface ritual of them, don't experience their deep meaning, what they do to the energy channels, or gave up because they were too dense to feel anything from the start and didn't give themselves time to physically adapt to them.

 

ChNNR's termas are super, duper powerful! I know because Muktanandas transmissions were powerful, and ChNNR's transmissions are even more powerful and his practice methods are way more grounding, liberating, and deeply nuanced in enlightened intention. Gurumayi I feel is a little flawed by theism, and this idea that she is one with god therefore every action of her's is infallible, and just by having a philosophy that supports that, makes her fallible, though maybe more perfect than the vast majority of people, as her love is amazing, it's not as infallible of a teaching as the tradition that see's relativity as ultimate instead of relativity as conventional and a transcendent god as ultimate. Which is why I'm somewhat non-theist (unless as a teaching tool), or somewhat anti-monist. Even though, some people need this positive anchor in order to evolve to the point where they can finally realize what d.o./emptiness means.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm not sure what you mean here by "naturally." This dynamic occurs only thanks to a certain kind of conditioning that we tend to share (some of us share this conditioning more equally than others). The conditioning basically says that someone has to be stronger than someone else. So it then says, I'll try for the top spot, and if I fail, I'll take the next step below. If I still fail, I try one step below that, and so on. It's the way monkeys and many other animals behave. But not all animals. It's not a universal law. It's a type of conditioning that prizes power over wisdom.

 

I'm talking about when wisdom is power. Like lets say, because you are wise, you emanate this amazing sense of personal power, you love are compassionate, and others want that, but haven't realized that yet. You are doing it right now. Your wisdom and confidence in this wisdom emanates a personal power that people want. If you go out there and do more than just write on the internet, you'll see that you'll just become a guru automatically and a hierarchy will just arise around you because well... most people just aren't as smart as you yet. That's why I'm saying your ideal will only work in an environment when everyone is already the "guru." But, if that were the case, you wouldn't be on here preaching what your preaching. We'd already be living in heaven on Earth! This realm is full of friction, tension, polarities. You don't think I didn't already think like you did? It doesn't seem that you recognize how solid this realm of extremes is. If we were to all vibrate at the level of the ideal you are speaking... we'd vibrate into a different dimension, or make this Earth realm vibrate with a more free wave system of polarities. It would cease to be Earth as we know it. Then again, it might work if our corporations would wake up and invest in renewable resources, except for the fact that the people at the tap have it the way it is so that they can be at the top of the pyramid of power, one creates need by decreasing resource. Renewable resources frees everyone and the high ups in the corporate ladder would loose their power over everyone to the all that we are, and everyone would be self empowered. These people are so deluded by their power structures that they can't see outside of their box. It's a corrupt hierarchy. That's why the systems of non-corrupt spiritual hierarchies that respect the nature of relativity were needed. But in your ideal, which I agree with, there'd be no more need for hierarchies! That'd be awesome!!

 

Ultimately I want everyone to be happy and free, and not to suffer under the yoke of some despot, be it a gross despot such a CEO, or the so-called "president" or "prime minister" or a more subtle despot, such as the Guru.

 

I agree, and a true Guru doesn't really want to be a Guru as a true Guru's goal is to make everyone Guru's of themselves!!

 

I believe our political issues and our spiritual issues are deeply intertwined. Yes, that's why it is indeed I believe that we all have to move closer and closer to personal, freely acquired, and freely manifested wisdom and power to finally find ourselves living in a society we enjoy living in.

 

Fuck yea dude! Love you even more!!

 

This is why I don't bother with political activism or revolutions. It's all a big waste of time if our culture is not ready. The real work happens at the level of the mind, one person at a time.

 

I agree, which is where you are being a Guru. You don't want to be, you want me to "get it" and be my own Guru, and that's where the Guru is needed and if a hierarchal structure occurs around you, may it not be corrupt with a recognition of the sphere of understanding that is should build upon. Then again, may we all just get what you're talking about and not have to have a hierarchal structure and we can have more spherical social structures of shared responsibility and shared spiritual conduct and information without any type of religion at all, by recognizing directly, interdependence!! Let's be one big happy enlightened family!! For sure!! That's been my goal since I first discovered enlightenment. Even as a little pre-schooler after first experiencing the 2nd jhana. I became bullied in elementary school by sticking up for the bullied, but I was untrained to protect myself back then, so I got smacked around. Later I learned how to fight and protected the bullied from the bullies, then later befriended some of the bullies and talked with them.

 

But even on this plane, there are many people who either consciously or unconsciously try to interfere, even on this forum.

 

Try to implement your ideas in the wild world away from the net. See what happens?

 

Shoot, I'm getting picked up by a hot girl, which my wife is... and I'm going out to party with them. I'll be back later!!! Love you GIH!! I love your ideals... I concur!!!

[goldisheavy]

This is exactly how ChNNR started, just having some students from the university he taught at in Italy come over and have dinner with him and have regular informal conversations. He as ralis say's, is not really a big fan of formalities, but at the same time, they are sometimes

...

...

...

...

Muktananda and Gurumayi also do this. Gurumayi has spoken against the

...

...

...

she just wants people to get it for themselves. ChNNR also wants this... this enlightened communalism is exactly what is desired. To

 

Vajra, stop.

 

Pay attention.

 

You are acting as if ChNNR is under attack. I don't recall reading a single post anywhere on this thread criticizing Chogyal Namkai Norbu. Not one.

 

One more time. This has to sink in.

 

Not one post on this thread has criticized Chogyal Namkai Norbu.

 

Should I repeat this one more time? Or do you get it?

 

I could continue, but I want you to think about the implications of what's happening right now in your psyche. So I am going to leave many things unsaid. Just think about what I am pointing out to you.

[goldisheavy]

This is why I don't bother with political activism or revolutions. It's all a big waste of time if our culture is not ready. The real work happens at the level of the mind, one person at a time.

 

I agree, which is where you are being a Guru.

 

Sigh.... So if I was your friend, that just wouldn't cut it? You must make me into a Guru now?

 

I am not a Guru. I will never be one. I don't want to be one.

 

I have some ideas which I think are beneficial. I'll share them. I expect people to disagree and to discuss them if there is interest (or to ignore them if there isn't). I expect people to share their ideas. I am also learning every day, even if I refuse to learn, I sometimes learn despite myself. It can't be helped. I am fallible. I make mistakes. I can sometimes make big mistakes.

 

If I can operate in a group of peers, I believe whatever mistakes I make will get caught by others. Whatever mistakes others make, I'll help to catch them. Then together we can move toward wisdom.

 

Vajra, the key word is together. Vajra, do you believe in Mahayana at all? Sometimes when I read the things you write I get depressed because I think you don't really believe in the Mahayana ideal at all. Then again, I am not surprised. You keep saying that Vajrayana is better than Mahayana.

Edited June 4, 2011 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

ChNNR also wants this... this enlightened communalism is exactly what is desired. To think they were out to just build some sort of empire around them is really just seeing the natural development around a person who really lives in and knows directly what's going on and has no fear in expressing it, and due to people being effected by this, that kind of overly externalized devotion just manifests, and eventually becomes a formal system. Hierarchies naturally form though, if they are abused, sometimes it's just not the Guru's fault, at other times it is. It's very relative and nuanced. One cannot use generalizations.

 

 

I agree, one should avoid sweeping generalizations. However, to say that devotion and guru worship are just natural occurrences is missing the point. A study of intra group dynamics and social psychology would confirm that power in any group is the commodity most sought after. Conditioning caused by parenting, education and societal pressures will most likely determine how one behaves in any group and will determine group hierarchal placement.

 

 

During the Buddhas time, and his disciples time, as he was a samyakasambuddha (wheel turning buddha), his students at that time were already pre-determined through meritous karmas (which is inter-dependent causation, action, connectivity... whatever) to be his students in order to keep his teachings spinning as the first wheel.

 

 

Again, this creates a predestined elitist group.

 

 

 

ChNNR's termas are super, duper powerful! I know because Muktanandas transmissions were powerful, and ChNNR's transmissions are even more powerful and his practice methods are way more grounding, liberating, and deeply nuanced in enlightened intention.

 

This is what troubles me, is the placing of teachers on a hierarchy of vibrations from the lesser to the greater.

 

 

as the tradition that see's relativity as ultimate instead of relativity as conventional and a transcendent god as ultimate. Which is why I'm somewhat non-theist (unless as a teaching tool), or somewhat anti-monist. Even though, some people need this positive anchor in order to evolve to the point where they can finally realize what d.o./emptiness means.

 

Are you hedging committing to a solid position? You are a somewhat anti-monist? A somewhat anti-theist?

Edited June 4, 2011 by ralis

[Seth Ananda]

I like your sense of relativity, a direct insight and understanding of interdependence/emptiness really comes from you.

Thanks

 

This is exactly how ChNNR started, just having some students from the university he taught at in Italy come over and have dinner with him and have regular informal conversations. He as ralis say's, is not really a big fan of formalities, but at the same time, they are sometimes needed when all of a sudden there is a big group, like the chair has to be higher so that everyone can see, and if there's a whole bunch of people, it's hard to have a real conversation so there has to be a lecture.

 

I know it may look like he started out this way, and please know I have great respect for him, but where are the enlightened Students? What I am saying is that if he chucked out all the puja's, mantra's and rituals, [or vastly reduced them] and spent much more time not orating, but deeply conversing with a few close students, getting to know their stuck areas, and challenging them to see clearly, he would have some enlightened students. He might even [heaven forbid] study the inquiry methods of some other non Buddhist traditions, that currently have a very good track record for bringing about deep realisations in many students. He could then apply those processes to helping students clearly see E&DO and No self. Dialogue is it!

 

I also think it takes more than a dinner with a liberated being to attain liberation though, generally speaking, lifetimes of condensed garbage take some time to sift through. If you are open, you'll have a liberating experience, then you'll know that you want to sift through the garbage, which is what the lineage practices are for.

 

I have to disagree. Buddha himself enlightened people in conversation. And I am talking many dinners, with no time wasted in ritual nonsense. Just deep honest Inquiring and to the point conversation.

Please note I love rituals, but they create states, not Enlightenment.

Seeing clearly frees you from state dependency [or freedom from the state, externally{sorry bad pun}].

And that requires nothing but good Honest discussion. Discussion uproots everything, no matter how much past life karma you think you have.

Pointing out discussion with full philosophical courage and honesty = Karma Irrelevant

 

 

During the Buddhas time, and his disciples time, as he was a samyakasambuddha (wheel turning buddha), his students at that time were already pre-determined through meritous karmas (which is inter-dependent causation, action, connectivity... whatever) to be his students in order to keep his teachings spinning as the first wheel.

 

Hocus pocus nonsense. Buddha was a genius. He helped students enlighten themselves by his masterful understanding of his [and thus their] mind. I firmly believe anyone who really wants to honestly Inquire can find this stuff. No one should ever be told that the early guys only 'got' it, because of Karma.

 

 

Seth,

 

I like your sense of relativity. Yes, if more people were enlightened, there'd be less of a need for Guru's. At the same time, how do you know that the teachings that Zopa Rinpoches students aren't getting enlightened from the practices he is giving. I can speak from personal experience, that the practices from these enlightened Rinpoches are very, very powerful.

 

I am friends with some of his students.

 

ChNNR's termas are super, duper powerful! I know because Muktanandas transmissions were powerful, and ChNNR's transmissions are even more powerful and his practice methods are way more grounding, liberating, and deeply nuanced in enlightened intention.

 

Powerful transmissions mean nothing If your mind is not getting clear.

Many Norbu students have been having powerful transmissions for the past 30 years, practising the practices, but still just do not get it. They are constantly excited by some new Powerful experience! but In their minds, they have no realisation worth mentioning. They remind me of friends who have a super dose of LSD every few months. "Wow, I was so In tune..." This is not enlightening anyone.

 

That said, If your Mind is getting clear and strong, and self reliant in its Inquiry abilitys, then I am all for powerful experiences. They add the Wahoo to life.

 

Gurumayi I feel is a little flawed by theism, and this idea that she is one with god therefore every action of her's is infallible, and just by having a philosophy that supports that, makes her fallible, though maybe more perfect than the vast majority of people, as her love is amazing, it's not as infallible of a teaching as the tradition that see's relativity as ultimate instead of relativity as conventional and a transcendent god as ultimate. Which is why I'm somewhat non-theist (unless as a teaching tool), or somewhat anti-monist. Even though, some people need this positive anchor in order to evolve to the point where they can finally realize what d.o./emptiness means.

 

The way I am currently seeing things is:

 

1. The world/mind is made up of States of consciousness.

 

2. There are Higher and Lower states. [higher/lower is my subjective evaluation based on expansiveness and effectiveness.]

 

3. All states are Interconnected and Dependently originating.

 

4. The 'supreme' state or 'God' state, has an [seemingly] Infinite organising 'Intelligence' but is still part and parcel of all other states.

 

5. That said, It is still a real ongoing and Incredibly wonderful and valuable experience.

 

6. Theistic Masters then Realise the 'Supreme' state of which there is no higher.

 

7. Buddhist Masters may or may not realise the supreme state, but certainly realise the 'Supreme' realisation, which is that all states are interdependently connected and Empty. Thus they become free from the State fixation which usually accompanies the Theistic path. The 'Supreme' realisation is not a state, but an ongoing realisation.

 

8. We are on the edge of a 'Golden Age' of Philosophy. For the first time ever, all systems of thought are available to us, as well as neurobiology, sociology, science, psychology... What emerges will surpass all previous revelations and understandings of the universe. And It will surpass all previous mystical methodology's, including the out dated Guru Model.

 

9. To bring about this 'Golden Age' will require the greatest Philosophical Courage and honesty, and Epic debates between people from multiple fields of research. So much Philosophical and religious dross will have to be sheared away. I personally believe Open Dialogue will be the golden heart of the new movement.

 

Seth.

[C T]

The difference is one of compassion and wisdom. Someone who is devoted to the Guru is not equally as compassionate or equally as wise, because that someone is doing harm, but doesn't see how it is in fact harm. Such person thinks, "I enjoyed this system, so let's spread it around."

 

Not necessarily. This is only an assumption. You mentioned that your teacher broke your chains. That was made possible not because your teacher was compassionate, but that you were ready to have your chains broken. If you were not ready, your teacher couldn't even have helped you untie your laces, let alone break your chains. Harm comes to those who are ready to be harmed. Freedom comes to those who are ready to be free. In summation, i would say that your guru didn't free you - you were solely responsible for your own emancipation. Yet there was a catalyst - Your teacher was it.

 

We need to see that catalysts are not good or bad at the fundamental level, at the level of virtue... just like yeast is neither good or bad. Its relative. Virtue does not always have to mean moral excellence... it can mean simply understanding things and seeing functions for what they are. In this there is no need to cling or reject. Then the application of functions gets a chance to fulfill its highest potentiality. Yeast can be used here a good example - in baking, very essential... yet too much of it, or too little, and the results would be less than optimal. There are always more than one factor involved, for example, the quality of the yeast, and the deftness of the baker. Its a symbiotic relationship, so to say that devotion to a guru is not as equally compassionate or wise and can lead to harm is to fail to understand the basis of how things can work and should work. Ants instinctively know how to use the symbiotic process to great effect within their highly hierarchical set-up. Its us intelligent humans who often blame the socio/political/religious set-up for failing to effectively understand and blend this process to our advantage.

I disagree completely. A foundation of any good relationship is one of trust, such as between friends.

 

And i would disagree with your disagreement. Trust is very shallow. One day, trust can be present, next day, suspicions arise. Even siblings and couples experience mistrust on an ever-increasing basis, which is why matrimonial and family law is a thriving business. Devotion only blossom as and when relationships have been thru the fire and emerge with all the wounds and scars, and still 2 people can forge an even stronger bond as a result of this. Trust is like agreeing to jump into a fire together, and devotion arises when stepping out of it.

 

This post costs $500 dollars. Where should I send the bill CowTao? Only kidding! Just kidding about the money bit and the bill.

 

:lol: You're a good man, GiH. Sometimes what you share here is priceless, and other times, well.....

[juju]

[ralis]

 

I understand your point of view - but in my personal experience Guru Yoga, which is a pure devotional practice, is a marvelous tool, which opens the heart and the navel in an incredible way. It gives strength and smoothness - and it does not mean at all that I am only allowed to say "Yes, of course" to my teacher.

Basically it is about taking responsibility for oneself. It is not at all about handing it over to the master.

And it is about trust and love. Which means: When you can truly trust one person, truly love one person - than you automatically love and trust yourself as well. This love and trust really changes so much – and helps to change yourself.

 

You mention genuine relationship - and this is exactly what for me is the base and the goal of Guru devotion. Devotion to a good Guru, plus practicing daily, brings quite some clarity.

But, I repeat: devotion is not just saying, "Yes, Sir". It is absolutely the opposite of handing over the responsibility for yourself. I never felt more responsible for myself than after finding my teacher, my Guru. For me a teacher-student-relationship is far more than blindly following his/her words. It is all about love and trust. About opening, more and more.

 

 

There are no guarantees that one will achieve anything by devotion to another, especially in this context. What is a good guru as opposed to a bad one? Please define.

 

 

Sure, there are Gurus who build their personal empire. But well – do you really only want those teachers who have a handful of students. Those you never see or hear about, as they are with their handful.

I think we need both. Gurus (good ones, who have a lot of insight, who might be Buddhas) – and the other ones.

 

Why place a hierarchal value on "Buddhas" and the implication is that Buddhas are somehow higher in realization? Which does nothing more than create sects and therefor so called higher and lower teachings. Why not "beings who are realizing"?

Edited June 4, 2011 by ralis

[juju]

There are no guarantees that one will achieve anything by devotion to another, especially in this context. What is a good guru as opposed to a bad one? Please define.

 

There are never guarantees for anything :-)

Who is a a good guru and who not, depends for a big part on you. Whoever might be able to teach you, is good. For you, at least.

I basically just wanted to avoid things like: "But there are so many bad people out there, who just want the student's money...."

Well, now I got the opposite

 

 

Why place a hierarchal value on "Buddha's"? Which does nothing more than create sects and therefor so called higher and lower teachings. Why not "beings who are realizing"?

 

If you prefer this words, go for it. There is no higher and lower. Sure not, if you realized everything. But until then I happily accept the the help of somebody who did realize far more then me.

[ralis]

 

But until then I happily accept the the help of somebody who did realize far more then me.

 

By what criteria are you able to reach that conclusion with? Who are you studying with?

[steve]

 

The way I am currently seeing things is:

 

1. The world/mind is made up of States of consciousness.

 

2. There are Higher and Lower states. [higher/lower is my subjective evaluation based on expansiveness and effectiveness.]

 

3. All states are Interconnected and Dependently originating.

 

4. The 'supreme' state or 'God' state, has an [seemingly] Infinite organising 'Intelligence' but is still part and parcel of all other states.

 

5. That said, It is still a real ongoing and Incredibly wonderful and valuable experience.

 

6. Theistic Masters then Realise the 'Supreme' state of which there is no higher.

 

7. Buddhist Masters may or may not realise the supreme state, but certainly realise the 'Supreme' realisation, which is that all states are interdependently connected and Empty. Thus they become free from the State fixation which usually accompanies the Theistic path. The 'Supreme' realisation is not a state, but an ongoing realisation.

 

8. We are on the edge of a 'Golden Age' of Philosophy. For the first time ever, all systems of thought are available to us, as well as neurobiology, sociology, science, psychology... What emerges will surpass all previous revelations and understandings of the universe. And It will surpass all previous mystical methodology's, including the out dated Guru Model.

 

9. To bring about this 'Golden Age' will require the greatest Philosophical Courage and honesty, and Epic debates between people from multiple fields of research. So much Philosophical and religious dross will have to be sheared away. I personally believe Open Dialogue will be the golden heart of the new movement.

 

Seth.

Very nice post Seth. I have a few questions/remarks.

 

"4. The 'supreme' state or 'God' state, has an [seemingly] Infinite organising 'Intelligence' but is still part and parcel of all other states."

 

What is the organizing intelligence? It sounds very close to me to the concept of Atman. I believe what you're referring to is specifically what Buddha was decrying. Not because he intended to state emphatically that it was not reality, but that it was a concept that one could cling to. I'm not disagreeing with you in any way (your words are pretty close to my personal experience), just teasing out detail.

 

 

"8. We are on the edge of a 'Golden Age' of Philosophy. For the first time ever, all systems of thought are available to us, as well as neurobiology, sociology, science, psychology... What emerges will surpass all previous revelations and understandings of the universe. And It will surpass all previous mystical methodology's, including the out dated Guru Model. "

 

Your ideas overall resonate with me a great deal. I do challenge this statement, however. I think that this feeling occurs in many ages. My real concern is this. Where is evidence of psychological maturity in the world? Of spiritual growth? Humanity has faced the exact same problems since time immemorial - hunger, violence, racism, greed, war. Show me any evidence that this is changing. All I see is more polarization, more tribalism, more conflict. I do believe that this maturity can occur and I believe that it can only occur at the individual level. Governments, religions, and their leaders can do nothing. They've done nothing in 40,000 years or so. It can only happen for each of us as individuals when we are ready. So then, how to take this into the large scale and make meaningful change such as you allude to?

 

 

9. To bring about this 'Golden Age' will require the greatest Philosophical Courage and honesty, and Epic debates between people from multiple fields of research. So much Philosophical and religious dross will have to be sheared away. I personally believe Open Dialogue will be the golden heart of the new movement.

 

I share your optimism in the value of dialogue. One of the masters of this was Jiddu Krishnamurti. His dialogues with many masters, including David Bohm, are fascinating. The Dalai Lama has continued this by his openness to interacting with the scientific world, physicists in particular. But where has it gotten us? Unfortunately, I don't see much movement at the macro level. Nevertheless, I do see and feel a great deal of movement at the individual level (me) and that is all I can ask.

[juju]

By what criteria are you able to reach that conclusion with? Who are you studying with?

 

You like the clear and conceptual catalogue-way, don't you?

A teacher has to

1) always wear yellow trousers

2) speak fluently five languages

3) show signs of realization as reading my thoughts, levitating etc.

.....

 

Or is it only that you adore attacking? Trying to figure out the weak spot? You give me the feeling of somebody ready to jump onto the next person who exposes himself. It is an interesting feeling and reaction you provoke in me.

 

Anyway: I study in Tibetan Buddhism, as you might have imagined.

And my criteria are not as clear. I just knew. It was obvious. And I did not know if I wanted it

 

But yes, if you look well there are quite some criteria, which I actually do not remember well enough to write them down here. And I am not in the mood to search for them now, and even less in English.

Many of them felt for me like common sense, I remember.

Maybe somebody can help out here....

[ralis]

You like the clear and conceptual catalogue-way, don't you?

A teacher has to

1) always wear yellow trousers

2) speak fluently five languages

3) show signs of realization as reading my thoughts, levitating etc.

.....

 

Or is it only that you adore attacking? Trying to figure out the weak spot? You give me the feeling of somebody ready to jump onto the next person who exposes himself. It is an interesting feeling and reaction you provoke in me.

 

Anyway: I study in Tibetan Buddhism, as you might have imagined.

And my criteria are not as clear. I just knew. It was obvious. And I did not know if I wanted it

 

But yes, if you look well there are quite some criteria, which I actually do not remember well enough to write them down here. And I am not in the mood to search for them now, and even less in English.

Many of them felt for me like common sense, I remember.

Maybe somebody can help out here....

 

 

You are over reacting to my question. I am not attacking and am only asking for clear explanations especially when generalized statements are made. As in this case you claim your teacher is more realized than you are. Very subjective statement on your part.

 

Are you in a certain state of bliss when you are around this teacher?

 

Does the state diminish over time when you are no longer in the teachers presence?

 

Is your teacher more like a parent to you?

Edited June 4, 2011 by ralis

[juju]

You are over reacting to my question. I am not attacking and am only asking for clear explanations especially when generalized statements are made. As in this case you claim your teacher is more realized than you are. Very subjective statement on your part.

 

Are you in a certain state of bliss when you are around this teacher?

 

Does the state diminish over time when you are no longer in the teachers presence?

 

Is your teacher more like a parent to you?

 

Of course it is subjective that I claim him to be more realized than me. So many things are subjective. Basically I do not know one thing which is not subjective, which can not be turned around by somebody quite convincing. Even science changes their objective ideas every now and then.

Or can you tell me a method how to surely prove this? Except seeing him levitating and showing you a foto

Are you sure I am not a realized being just tempting you? Can I be sure you are not completely aware and clear and realized and putting me on the spot?

 

Whenever I am together with people I love, I feel more bliss. Whenever I am sad, I am far less in bliss.

Whenever I am around people with good energy, it is easier for me to be happy.

Whenever I do make my practice well, I feel more bliss. The longer I practice (I do not only mean 1 hour or two - but as well in the total amount of years), the more I am generally in bliss.

Every state changes when I am with someone or with somebody else. Sometimes simply because the weather is changing. And sometimes because one of those bloody freaking thoughts comes up.

 

My teacher is like him. Not my brother, not my uncle and not my boyfriend

 

 

Did those answers help you?

Why do you want to know all this? Did you have bad experiences and want to warn me?

Do you have a teacher yourself?

What are you studying?

Does your practice make you more happy?

Are you afraid a teacher could change your life?

[Pero]

I do not believe the Guru devotion thing is at all necessary, and really I think it gets in the way. Its an archaic religious tool, stemming from very poor country's, designed to support the Guru so he does not have to work for himself.

That's fine but it's just your idea.

 

6. I am not against studying with any Guru myself, as long as I can enter the relationship as a potential friend, and be totally open in my questioning and relating with them. Ritualized formalities are totally useless in today's world, and only serve to create hierarchical structures. Also when I am no longer learning, or gaining insight, then I will leave. No life long student Oaths for me.

This is fine in Buddhism too, if you follow Sutra teachings.

Imagine if Namkhai just picked 8 people and had them over for dinner and philosophy every night for the next few years. After he had enlightened them [if you believe he is enlightened] he could then invite 8 more. Whats more, those 8 would go out and share their Individual perspectives on what they had realized as well.

You seem to have the misconception that a teacher can enlighten the student. It's not like that. A student is responsible for his own enlightenment.

If you believe the Legends, Buddha was able to Liberate many with just a few sentences.

This was only due to their past karma. I see you don't think that way but you're mistaken. Hocus pocus non-sense is your idea that someone can simply enlighten you with just talking. It's not impossible, but you have to have done the work so to speak for it to be possible. You mention pointing out, but it doesn't mean you get enlightened if you understand, it is just the beginning. Afterwards you still have a long way to go.

 

Also, mantras and pujas aren't the main point, that is true, but you're mistaken if you think they have no value.

Anyway, enlightenment is not an easy thing. I know new age people like you have this kind of idea, and perhaps they get to whatever enlightenment they believe in, but achieving Buddhahood is no easy matter.

[Aaron]

That's fine but it's just your idea.

 

 

This is fine in Buddhism too, if you follow Sutra teachings.

 

You seem to have the misconception that a teacher can enlighten the student. It's not like that. A student is responsible for his own enlightenment.

 

This was only due to their past karma. I see you don't think that way but you're mistaken. Hocus pocus non-sense is your idea that someone can simply enlighten you with just talking. It's not impossible, but you have to have done the work so to speak for it to be possible. You mention pointing out, but it doesn't mean you get enlightened if you understand, it is just the beginning. Afterwards you still have a long way to go.

 

Also, mantras and pujas aren't the main point, that is true, but you're mistaken if you think they have no value.

Anyway, enlightenment is not an easy thing. I know new age people like you have this kind of idea, and perhaps they get to whatever enlightenment they believe in, but achieving Buddhahood is no easy matter.

 

Hello Pero,

 

Again, how many times does one have to remind Buddhists of the eightfold path? Do you folks believe that the eightfold path is optional, or that you can pick and choose which of them to practice? Right speech, right action. Do not insult or denigrate, treat others with compassion. You are dismissing and diminishing Seth because you are attached to a concept.

 

Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Seth is entitled to his opinion, and unlike you, is not supposed to follow a code of conduct when he discusses it. I would suggest before you continue your claims of being a Buddhist, you learn a bit more about how one is supposed to act. Examine the eightfold path, then come back and continue your discussion.

 

If you can't follow the very basic tenants of your religion, then how can you expect anyone to take what you have to say seriously?

 

Aaron

 

Edit- You're not the only one that's doing this, but I often scan a topic in reverse and caught this one first. I have noticed Juju and others as well. I would suggest that before anyone continues their claims of being a Buddhist they actually review the eightfold path. If you can't follow the very basic teachings, then do not presume to teach what comes after.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Twinner