Obsession with old, dead guys...

[steve]

Ah, that's my cue: "I don't know!"

 

Thanks brudda!

[steve]

When you say "we," may you be projecting somewhat here? Do you perhaps feel distanced from your mother?

 

Cuz I personally have some "old/older woman" mentors/role models and everyone is free to chose whomever they want to learn from as well. This does include old women too - although they may perhaps not be as statistically popular in the mainstream.. But there is no reason why anyone has to limit themselves to the mainstream status quo in life - I sure as hell don't!!!

You may just be on to something there.

I definitely have never fully worked out where things stand with my mommy and I do miss my grandmommy.

There certainly may be some personal projection but I always find it telling that most indigenous and shamanic cultures show an enormously greater level of respect to the female than do most of our current traditions - that's really what is was referring to and I was implying nature as our mother.

[adept]

[Vajrahridaya]

I disagree completely - you have objectified your lineage. You cling to it.

It is your refuge.

There is no security.

There is no ground to stand on.

You haven't yet understood emptiness my learned friend.

 

What do you think emptiness means? Non-existence? Or does it reify a separate individual that has to walk his own path? No, it means interconnection, the mutability of everything and no-inherent self, to name a few meanings. There is yourself, that walks a path uniquely, but due to the fact of emptiness, not as an inherently real individual. So, how are you a "self" thinking you are separate from anyone else? Including your lineage? Which you don't seem to have anyway, so lets say, those that you are inspired by spiritually. In meditation, as you go through the different jhanas, you'll see directly the heaven realms, by actually going there, as spoken about in different scriptures. Generally a particular lineage has their own version, and this version is a manifestation of that lineages merit. When you are connected to that lineage and you have worked on yourself through the methods taught by that lineage, you will manifest in that lineages pure realm in order to keep deepening and learning. This is an experiential fact for me, not mere learning. Though I am an individual, I also am not. I was speaking about the aspect of not being an individual as you seem to have this idea of the lonely mans journey?

 

Who are you and who are they?

 

We are as we be.

 

Since you seem to be inspired by people like Jidu Krishnamurti? Who looked down on lineages and methods for attaining enlightenment and just juggled intellectual excuses while himself never actually realizing enlightenment... I can understand your perspective. I know I'll catch flack for that comment. But seriously, the guy was just an over enthusiastic intellectual with a few siddhis. I know he meant well and he did say some important things, but he also said some stupid things that screwed with a lot of impressionable minds.

 

I take refuge in the Buddha (all Buddha beings), the Dharma (there attainment that has no beginning nor end, the teachings that got them there, and the methods that serve the teachings), and the Sangha (the family of Buddhists in my lineage who recognize something that's good in the beginning, middle and the end and is not just a bunch of hot air).

 

I do not inherently exist in order to be alone, and I am connected to all beings due to the fact of inter-dependence. But, I am most intimately connected to my lineage and sangham, so I will never truly be alone, even if I alone walk the same path as them. We will meet again and again, as part of the Buddha family. Even after full blown Buddhahood, I will teach the refuge into the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. So you see, there is no end to being connected with my lineage, in fact, there is only the steady deepening of that connection.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

[Otis]

What do you think emptiness means?

I think it means: "not knowing". It means: full surrender of habits, including the habits of belief. It means: zero certainty, as certainty is merely an emotional assertion of rightness.

 

I don't think it means: "seeing things as they are". I think it means: realizing that I can never see things as they are, only empty myself out more and more, to get a less obstructed view. The more I think I know, the less empty I am.

 

Delusion = mistaking my view of the world for the world itself. Surrender my attachment to my view, and I am no longer deluded. That surrender also means that I am lost, but I was lost already, before surrendering the importance of my view, of my experiences. Now I am without a ground to stand on, but at least I no longer fool myself into thinking that I'm on solid ground.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vajrahridaya]

I think it means: "not knowing". It means: full surrender of habits, including the habits of belief. It means: zero certainty, as certainty is merely an emotional assertion of rightness.

 

I don't think it means: "seeing things as they are". I think it means: realizing that I can never see things as they are, only empty myself out more and more, to get a less obstructed view. The more I think I know, the less empty I am.

 

Delusion = mistaking my view of the world for the world itself. Surrender my attachment to my view, and I am no longer deluded. That surrender also means that I am lost, but I was lost already, before surrendering the importance of my view, of my experiences. Now I am without a ground to stand on, but at least I no longer fool myself into thinking that I'm on solid ground.

 

Well, that's what you think emptiness means, and then there is what the Buddha taught, which coincides with my own experience.

 

The Buddha taught there is no refuge in this world, there is also no god to take refuge in. He said if there was, he'd teach that, but since there isn't he doesn't teach that. Instead he taught to take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Not in ones own intellectual musings. The Buddha Dharma makes sense, coincides with my experience, it's logically sound, it's an eternal refuge from delusion, so I take it.

 

Everyone is free to wander in their view, but I'll choose Buddhas "right view" the first of the 8 fold noble path. It is specific, and it's not the same as other views. There are too many examples of how well this path works, and how many people it has liberated. So, I'll choose the path and view that has liberated the most people on planet Earth, humbly and happily letting go of my own intellectual musing.

 

Yes, I am attached to my lineage, but this attachment frees me from all other superfluous attachments. I know enough to know that my delusions, no matter how well I can talk beyond them, are not turned into wisdom through talking either to others or to myself. But are transformed into wisdom through the methods of Buddhas who have come before me and have been passed down to me in an unbroken lineage. I have enough direct experience beyond my delusions to be very clear, sure and secure in this fact, so much so, that even when I'm being delusional, or a babbling idiot, this fact that has made an indelible impression in my mind stream remains untainted by my delusions.

 

I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and not my delusional understanding of existence. I surrender to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and not to this world, that has no refuge. Through insight gained by practicing the Dharma, I am able to see through this world and realize deeper and deeper waves of liberated and clear cognition within the illusion of myself.

 

I do have a stable ground to walk on, and that's the path of the Buddhas, as dependently originated and empty of inherent existence as it might be, it is without beginning and without end. Unlike this world.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

_{Obsession with old, dead guys......}

[Vajrahridaya]

_{Obsession with old, dead guys......}

:lol:

 

I get it!! Steve is worried about Gay Necrophilia!! Or women with Necrophilia surrounded by a "father complex!!!" Oh man!!

[steve]

[steve]

The Buddha taught there is no refuge in this world, there is also no god to take refuge in. He said if there was, he'd teach that, but since there isn't he doesn't teach that. Instead he taught to take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

Got it!

There is no refuge in this world, and no refuge in god, and he doesn't teach that there is any refuge in this world.

He teaches to take refuge in him, his ideas, and his family.

Got it!

Thanks!

Good luck with that.

 

:lol:

 

I get it!! Steve is worried about Gay Necrophilia!! Or women with Necrophilia surrounded by a "father complex!!!" Oh man!!

Hmmm - that would be really weird. I may need to talk to a therapist about that.

I'm much sicker than I thought!

 

Wait a minute now, I'm the one arguing AGAINST the gay necrophilia - you have already confessed and show no sign of contrition whatsoever!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

It is leading to "steady deepening" of attachment in my view.

 

I'm not confined by your view, and my view is a viewless view.

 

Buddha didn't know Buddhism -

 

Actually, the Buddha did teach Buddhism. He's the only fire starter that actually taught, and preached what is being taught and preached thousands of years later. As he taught for 45 years, unlike Lau Tzu, and Jesus. He taught very clearly, he also taught methods, not merely philosophy.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't know what the Buddha taught outside of a few quotes here and there. This I am just getting from your statements concerning what you think he taught. Do you know that he taught the 8 fold noble path? The 8 jhanas? Vipassana? He taught the refuge vows to both monks and lay persons? Do you know that he taught the 4 noble truths? He taught the meaning of Samsara, the way out of Samsara and the meaning of Nirvana and what it consists of? Of course, you can say that we don't know what he taught, but when one meditates on his teachings, one can have direct insight into what he taught that transcends time. The Buddha told his closest and enlightened disciples to repeat everything of him over and over again, which is where the chanting of his teachings comes from, directly from what the Buddha taught during the time of the strictly oral tradition. The Buddha indeed taught Buddhism. He set out to start a spiritual tradition that could be passed down, even after his death. He is his teaching and his methods.

 

The Buddha is not dead.

 

 

Emptiness - it evokes in me a lack of framework, a lack of ground substance on which to stand, whether that be physical, symbolic, metaphysical, ritual, or traditional. It is, as I've posted before, the difference to me between belief and faith.

Belief crowds out faith - it is a fervent hope that a particular, untestable explanation is true.

It is outside of us, it is something we cling to like a life raft. It's a ground substance, a surface on which to stand.

 

It is said that until you have actually crossed the ocean of Samsara, the structured raft is necessary, otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have taught with clarity for 45 years and even after his physical death via the Sambhogakaya (energy body) to qualified Masters of meditation which is where many but not all of the Mahayana and Vajrayana Sutras come from as he did teach some of them before he passed on. And even after you have crossed ocean, you don't throw away the raft, or burn it, or put it down, talk crap to it, say, "what a waste of time that was," but instead, out of compassion, you give it to others.

 

No matter what you talk on here Steve, with your Krishnamurti musings, it is clear that you have not crossed this ocean of Samsara. So to talk about throwing away a raft that you have not even used to it's fullest potential, is really not helping anyone. It's just like drinking wine at a party and talking about sex to your friends, while I'm actually getting laid in the back room with a hot lady.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[suninmyeyes]

 

Exactly why I emphasized gender.

It's so true and we are so conditioned and indoctrinated by our authorities that they are terribly pervasive and subtle.

We have lost our way back to ourselves and our mother.

It's sad.

 

Steve,I dont think we have lost our way back to nature.

This is yet another example of masculine and not uncommon form of thinking ,it suggests feeling of being separate and that there is somwhere to get to.

Our mother is holding us tight ,but some of us might be having a nap.

Anyway ,very nice therad.

[Vajrahridaya]

Got it!

There is no refuge in this world, and no refuge in god, and he doesn't teach that there is any refuge in this world.

He teaches to take refuge in him, his ideas, and his family.

Got it!

Thanks!

Good luck with that.

Indeed, and it obviously works by the amount of Buddhas that have come after him.

Hmmm - that would be really weird. I may need to talk to a therapist about that.

I'm much sicker than I thought!

 

Wait a minute now, I'm the one arguing AGAINST the gay necrophilia - you have already confessed and show no sign of contrition whatsoever!

 

You caught me Steve, you caught me red phallused. I do indeed love bedding the dead, I caress the smooth surface of the dead every day!!

 

Since the Buddha is his teachings, and the Buddhadharma is his body... reading his teachings is like having spiritual sex with a dead guy, leading to constant internal orgasm!!

[Vajrahridaya]

The more attached I become to the teaching, the freer I become. The more attached I realize I am to everything around me in every moment, the more liberated in that moment I become. The more I un-become me, and become more of a channel for the Buddhas teaching and energy, the happier I am as an individual.

[steve]

I'm not confined by your view, and my view is a viewless view.

Nothing like slinging around the gratuitous assertions!

 

 

Actually, the Buddha did teach Buddhism. He's the only fire starter that actually taught, and preached what is being taught and preached thousands of years later. As he taught for 45 years, unlike Lau Tzu, and Jesus. He taught very clearly, he also taught methods, not merely philosophy.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't know what the Buddha taught outside of a few quotes here and there. This I am just getting from your statements concerning what you think he taught. Do you know that he taught the 8 fold noble path? The 8 jhanas? Vipassana? He taught the refuge vows to both monks and lay persons? Do you know that he taught the 4 noble truths? He taught the meaning of Samsara, the way out of Samsara and the meaning of Nirvana and what it consists of? Of course, you can say that we don't know what he taught, but when one meditates on his teachings, one can have direct insight into what he taught that transcends time. The Buddha told his closest and enlightened disciples to repeat everything of him over and over again, which is where the chanting of his teachings comes from, directly from what the Buddha taught during the time of the strictly oral tradition. The Buddha indeed taught Buddhism. He set out to start a spiritual tradition that could be passed down, even after his death. He is his teaching and his methods.

 

Actually, I'm fairly familiar with the Four Noble Truths and Eight Fold Path and so on.

And you may cling as firmly to that path as others cling to other teachings.

There are many beautiful teachings and all need to be let go of, even yours.

If you don't know that yet you are not as far along as I imagined.

 

The Buddha is not dead.

Of course not, it is what you substitute for a god or a way.

It is your life raft.

It has never been born and never dies.

It is empty and the source of everything.

I love it, actually

It's way cool...

King Missile did a great song called Jesus was cool, I may re-write that with Buddha!

 

 

 

 

 

No matter what you talk on here Steve, with your Krishnamurti musings, it is clear that you have not crossed this ocean of Samsara. So to talk about throwing away a raft that you have not even used to it's fullest potential, is really not helping anyone. It's just like drinking wine at a party and talking about sex to your friends, while I'm actually getting laid in the back room with a hot lady.

Methinks I struck a chord.

Trying to make me jealous by comparing your siddhis to getting laid in the back room with a hot lady?

And I'm full of crap?

Sorry my friend, I have no ill intent... enjoy the hotties and I'll have a drink.

 

 

Steve,I dont think we have lost our way back to nature.

This is yet another example of masculine and not uncommon form of thinking ,it suggests feeling of being separate and that there is somwhere to get to.

Our mother is holding us tight ,but some of us might be having a nap.

Anyway ,very nice therad.

Thank you for that suninmyeyes, I appreciate that perspective.

I can be pretty dense sometimes...

In case you haven't already figured that out!

[ralis]

The more attached I become to the teaching, the freer I become. The more attached I realize I am to everything around me in every moment, the more liberated in that moment I become. The more I un-become me, and become more of a channel for the Buddhas teaching and energy, the happier I am as an individual.

 

Your ranting is one vast inflated view of yourself! Why not set up a pulpit on any given street corner and preach the gospel of Buddhism. You seem to have infinite amounts of time on your hands since you moved to Canada.

 

I am really enjoying your excessive use of hyphens.

Edited June 21, 2011 by ralis

[C T]

Raft... Can be a great example.

 

These old dead guys have given humanity 'rafts' to navigate the choppy seas.

 

Being obsessed with the rafts, of which many of us are guilty of, isn't the same as being obsessed with the Raftmakers, eh?

 

I dunno... merely reflecting on the red words i typed up earlier. I put them there as a raft for myself, a sort of precursor to something i wanted to contemplate upon. Now that contemplation has been effected, do i need to return again and again to stare at them red words? I'd be silly to do so... Yet at the same time, they do form the basis for contemplation, so they are not completely dismissed altogether. One could say these red words are empty, yet not empty in the same instance. Empty because they are already downstream, yet not fully empty because without them a stream (of thought) would not have manifested.

 

As the Buddha says, With our thoughts we create our world. Not the world, but our very own personal world. Amazing that within this one earth-world there exists 6,775,235,700 other worlds. I am flummoxed... so many old, dead people that came before this existence, and the existence before that. Man, i gotta go take a nap. Brain's buzzin'.

Edited June 21, 2011 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

Nothing like slinging around the gratuitous assertions!

 

 

What you're not seeing is the paradox I am explaining to you. Which is this, the more attached one becomes to the Buddhas teaching, the less attached one is to a "self" to attach to the thought that there is a teaching to be attached to or the thinking and attachment that there is a "self" that can even take refuge!

 

So you understand? I'm not a black and white thinker my friend.

 

Once one realizes that Krishnamurti and others like him, who say some good things, but are more like hot air that feels good when blown on you in the cold, yet offer no real liberating methodology. One might wish to go to something with more substance, like the Buddhadharma, it's higher in fiber and more likely to blow the crap from out your spiritual colon.

 

I mean no ill intent either dear brother on the path to higher self evaluation.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

The claim is made that Buddha after his death is teaching in an energy body to qualified masters. That has always been unacceptable to Theravada Buddhists and yet the use of the term Buddhism in present day discourse is somehow meant as all inclusive for all Buddhist believers. However, in that context, the Tibetans in particular have created a hierarchy of lower, Theravada being the lowest, to higher teachings, Tibetan Buddhism being the highest.

 

This mythological revisionism does nothing but create disparities where none should exist in the first place!

[C T]

 

This mythological revisionism does nothing but create disparities where none should exist in the first place!

I'm afraid to say that the only disparity that exists is the one you are desperately attempting to create and make real, and the good news is that you are not alone. A big raft for this one. And i am the tea-maker on it okay?

 

Seriously though, as one delves deeper, there are no discriminations whatsoever. Within every single so-called unsurpassed teachings, whether they be Dzogchen or Mahamudra or Madhyamika, there exists representations of all three Yanas. Ground - Hinayana / Path - Mahayana / Fruition - Vajrayana. All intricately linked and supports each other. If you want i can dig for evidence from Vajrayana lineage holders who can verify this.

[Vajrahridaya]

The claim is made that Buddha after his death is teaching in an energy body to qualified masters. That has always been unacceptable to Theravada Buddhists and yet the use of the term Buddhism in present day discourse is somehow meant as all inclusive for all Buddhist believers. However, in that context, the Tibetans in particular have created a hierarchy of lower, Theravada being the lowest, to higher teachings, Tibetan Buddhism being the highest.

 

This mythological revisionism does nothing but create disparities where none should exist in the first place!

 

You don't understand that this is a relative thing, not an absolute demarcation. Also, it's not something the Tibetans did, it's a hierarchy that was already in place when Vajrayana was in India before it even came to Tibet. Check the Sanskrit scriptures still in Nepal from the Newar lineages of Vajrayana.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_Buddhism

 

There is definitely a process of progression. You are attaching too much of an ultimate black and white type of view onto this relative demarcation of higher and lower hierarchies.

 

Also, there is adequate proof that the Buddha taught the Mahayana at the same time that he taught the Theravada as both teachings were written at the same time, as newer and newer findings from around India are revealing. Theravada by the way is not the Hinayana. The Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhists as you say, do not mention Theravada, but mention Hinayana, which is a practice that is not in existence anymore. The Theravada has a Bodhisattva concept though does not have a wider view of dependent origination/emptiness, so is not quite Mahayana, but not quite Hinayana at the same time. What the Theravada is missing are certain methods that the Vajrayana employ to speed up the enlightenment process as well as give access to the potential for the body of light or rainbow body. There are no Theravadins that have attained the Rainbow Body, but there are plenty of Vajrayanists both recently and throughout history that have. Most people are not ready for these methods, so we have Theravada to meet those needs, as well as non-tantric Mahayana like Zen, which leads to Buddhahood as well, but not the Rainbow Body which is a specific kind of attainment after Buddhahood which expands a Buddhas capacity to teach. ChNNR gave this teaching at a retreat in NYC, where he talked about the reason why someone would want to attain the Jalus or Rainbow Body. As it takes a very high being to have access to a Sambogakaya Buddha, but it's much easier to have access to a Rainbow Body Buddha. He explains this in his books as well. So, I'm not saying anything different from Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche.

 

The only disparity is in your mind ralis, as well as the minds of Buddhists who I am not inspired by.

 

It's all relative ralis, including the hierarchies. They are not ultimate. Also, it's obvious by your statements that you ran from Buddhism, due to your projections before it actually helped you get access to higher states of meditative absorption. Otherwise, you would not doubt the possibility of receiving teachings from dead Buddhas through the Sambhogakaya. I don't have this doubt. I know that the stories of great Masters receiving teachings from Buddhas in another dimension are true.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm afraid to say that the only disparity that exists is the one you are desperately attempting to create and make real, and the good news is that you are not alone. A big raft for this one. And i am the tea-maker on it okay?

 

Seriously though, as one delves deeper, there are no discriminations whatsoever. Within every single so-called unsurpassed teachings, whether they be Dzogchen or Mahamudra or Madhyamika, there exists representations of all three Yanas. Ground - Hinayana / Path - Mahayana / Fruition - Vajrayana. All intricately linked and supports each other. If you want i can dig for evidence from Vajrayana lineage holders who can verify this.

 

Brilliant, and simply stated. Wonderful! If you do have time at some point to dig... I'd be interested myself!

 

p.s. I like how sometimes we are writing at the same time, and then I post and see that we say the same thing, except I'm long winded and you are simple and concise in your statements. I bow to that in you dear Vajra bro. I think it's a sign that you've digested the teachings more than me.

 

Ok sorry everyone, gushing praise rant finished.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

The Buddha is not dead.

LOL yes he is dead. He died of food poisoning (wild mushrooms of rancid meat) and spent his last days vomitting up blood and shitting through the eye of a needle. He is nothing but food for worms and maggots.