Dzogchen via intrisic Kundalini

[trd]

I have no idea who Buddhagosa was so I cannot comment.

[fabianfred]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Why is it ordinary? Because it cannot be anything other than what you are. Are you expecting fireworks? Is the practice worth the effort to just be what you are. If you want to end suffering, it is.

I think you have this mythological image of the Buddha as some towering figure lost in the mists of time and what has come down to you are long complex texts which have been revised, interpreted and then re-interpreted. A kind of Da Vinci code that is difficult and near impossible to crack. The more difficult and esoteric it seems, the more valuable it becomes. In your lifetime you have probably passed several buddhas in the street without noticing.

It is obvious that your leanings are Mahayana ...not really the Thai Buddhism this forum is about.

When you say one might pass several Buddhas in the street....perhaps you are meaning boddhisattas....?

There can only be one Buddha at a time and the present one's dhamma is not due to disappear for another 2,500 or so years...until then no more Buddhas can come.

Also they are extremely rare beings...certainly not bumping into each other...

Naturally I am speaking from the Theravada perspective.

[RandomSand]

There can only be one Buddha at a time and the present one's dhamma is not due to disappear for another 2,500 or so years...until then no more Buddhas can come.

For what cosmological reason would there only be a single Buddha at any given time ?

I'm happy to hear your explanation from either the "inner" or "outer" perspective.

-Note; I don't seek argument. Just "scientific" cosmological knowledge.

[trd]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Why is it ordinary? Because it cannot be anything other than what you are. Are you expecting fireworks? Is the practice worth the effort to just be what you are. If you want to end suffering, it is.

I think you have this mythological image of the Buddha as some towering figure lost in the mists of time and what has come down to you are long complex texts which have been revised, interpreted and then re-interpreted. A kind of Da Vinci code that is difficult and near impossible to crack. The more difficult and esoteric it seems, the more valuable it becomes. In your lifetime you have probably passed several buddhas in the street without noticing.

It is obvious that your leanings are Mahayana ...not really the Thai Buddhism this forum is about.

When you say one might pass several Buddhas in the street....perhaps you are meaning boddhisattas....?

There can only be one Buddha at a time and the present one's dhamma is not due to disappear for another 2,500 or so years...until then no more Buddhas can come.

Also they are extremely rare beings...certainly not bumping into each other...

Naturally I am speaking from the Theravada perspective.

On what authority do you claim there can be only one Buddha at a time. You have a mere concept of what Buddha mind is. That is the fundamental problem. You are immersed in concepts and historical hearsay. All knowledge is ignorance.

How does it help your spiritual growth to say that I am of the mahayana persuasion rather than theravada. You will not progress as long as you are stuck in this kind of mindset.

Edited February 6, 2014 by trd

[RandomSand]

It's said that the Buddha could manifest in multiple realms at the same time.

It's also said that Buddha manifested at two separate locations in India simultaneously on one occasion.

Hardly "normal", is it ?

[rockyysdt]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Hi TRD.

I'm interested in your indication that Awakening results in a state requiring no further practice.

What needs to occur for this threshold to be passed?

On what is this based?

[trd]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Hi TRD.

I'm interested in your indication that Awakening results in a state requiring no further practice.

What needs to occur for this threshold to be passed?

On what is this based?

What do YOU mean by practice? Please try and be as clear and precise as you can.

[RandomSand]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Hi TRD.

I'm interested in your indication that Awakening results in a state requiring no further practice.

What needs to occur for this threshold to be passed?

On what is this based?

What do YOU mean by practice? Please try and be as clear and precise as you can.

Sorry to interrupt your debate..

It would be far simpler if you would fully describe this practice to which you refer rather than demanding others to explain themselves.

I quote you: "same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice."

[rockyysdt]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Hi TRD.

I'm interested in your indication that Awakening results in a state requiring no further practice.

What needs to occur for this threshold to be passed?

On what is this based?

What do YOU mean by practice? Please try and be as clear and precise as you can.

My reference was to your quote (post #24 Posted 2014-02-04 15:07:09): When you awaken to this reality, there is no further practice required.

I can tell you what I practice, but as I'm at novice levels with no level of success to report, your knowledge of practice would be more pertinent.

I'm interested in your indication that Awakening results in a state requiring no further practice and would like to know how we can be certain this is the case.

Although not conclusive, I've known practitioners who have dedicated 25 or more years to practice only to come away and regress to states steeped in their conditioning.

Perhaps incorrect, I concluded awakened states require ongoing maintenance.

I'm also open to your interpretation of practice.

Edited February 6, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Hi TRD.

I'm interested in your indication that Awakening results in a state requiring no further practice.

What needs to occur for this threshold to be passed?

On what is this based?

What do YOU mean by practice? Please try and be as clear and precise as you can.

Sorry to interrupt your debate..

It would be far simpler if you would fully describe this practice to which you refer rather than demanding others to explain themselves.

I quote you: "same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice."

That's a valid point RandomSand. I've just reviewed my past posts and it seems all these topics have already been covered. And I was on the verge of saying that I feel I have said all I can say on this subject. However it is worth pursuing a bit more. I'll reply in due course.

[rockyysdt]

And I was on the verge of saying that I feel I have said all I can say on this subject. However it is worth pursuing a bit more. I'll reply in due course.

I'm pleased that you'll consider replying.

Please don't take my posts as adversarial in nature.

Far from it, they are aimed at extracting further information to sharpen practice and knowledge.

For me, your posts make sense, but there is more to be uncovered.

Edited February 6, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Firstly, we have to get past terminology. I use Hindu/Vedic terminology while you identify yourself as a Buddhist and speak in those terms. However, that is not a problem for me. I respect everyone's views.

In terms of practice, I wanted to establish exactly what you mean by it, because you previously mentioned mindfullness. That often means different things to different people. If you mean that you passively observe your thoughts, sensory perceptions and actions then we get into a very subtle area of practice and experience that may not always be appropriate to discuss in a forum. I will always make myself freely available on a one to one basis over skype or meet up if that's possible to discuss individual practice because it requires an intimate dialogue that cannot be achieved in a forum. But in terms of discussing wider issues a forum is OK.

The sense of "I" is being created constantly. It is the fundamental primary thought that first appears in the conscious mind. If seeking realization, one should clearly understand that the I is not a stable entity, it is not a given and constant being. The I is in constant change, recreating itself at every moment, and that is why it is regarded as not real. You identify with it, but this identity is not you as far as The Self goes. Experiences, hopes, dreams, ideas and feelings interact constantly and this interaction produces the "I". Along side of this there is a tendency to identify with all this, and that tendency is the basic I-ness. Once one awakens, this tendency vanishes and there is no longer any I-ness, or I AM-ness. The interaction of the experiences, hopes, dreams, ideas and feelings still go on, but one is no longer involved in them. This is freedom. It is Oneness with Pure Being. It is "IS-ness", rather than "I AM-ness". When trying to sense the I-ness, one should be aware that it is mainly a feeling of being an individual, a someone. It is not something more or less definable, like an emotion or a thought. In terms of practice it is this that we want to abide in because turning ones attention to it dissolves the I leaving only awareness, being, emptiness. Rather than feast the mind, you need to fast the mind. It is when one becomes permanently established in that, that one can say I am realized. Once it happens it is irreversible.

The fact is, nothing can be said about this state except that it IS. The closest you can ever come to say what it is, is that it is IS-ness after you go beyond the realization that you are not the primal I AM-ness or the primal I-ness (which is the same). It is not even "nothingness", since this implies absence. It is not something you grow into, since this implies change of something unawakened into something more awakened. And you must realize that there is no longer a someone that has become something, because there is only you as the Self. Nor is it something that you get or reach or grow into, it is being who you already are prior to a sense of I-NESS.

What I call Self Realization is not the end though. There is still final Liberation. Even after Self Realization, although new karmas are not being created, there are still past karmas that need to burn themselves out, so there is still some identification with duality. Liberation happens only when all past karmas have been extinquished and everthing is then seen as Unity.

So is practice necessary after Realization? I can only say what I said before. As there is no me after Realization, who is there to practice? I often allow myself to be totally immersed in the bliss of silence to the exclusion of anything else because there is a pull in that direction, but I must emphasise that it is not a practice because there is nothing to be improved upon.

Now where does this get us. Even among the most enlightened masters of any tradition there have always been differences of opinion. You will know the Buddhist references better than I do, but for instance in the Hindu tradition there is advaita which says that there is only one thing and that is the Self (Atma). Shankara is the best known master of what is the prevailing view. But in Samkya, the view is that there are two things, consciousness and matter. The greatest exponent of this is a yogi called Patanjali whose eight limbed raja yoga (ashtanga) has filtered down into the modern age where mainly one of the eight limbs, namely asana (physical postures) has sadly become what most people think is yoga. But that's another subject.

So what I'm saying is, by all means expose yourself to all kinds of ideas and interpretations within Buddhist philosophy, but don't confuse this with direct experience because ultimately it won't matter.

By the way, one of the best descriptions I have read about spiritual progress and would recommend reading is from a book called Samana, the autobiography of Luangtua Maha Boowa, the late abbot of Udon Thani from the forest tradition. Not the first part which deals with family obligations etc, but the latter part where he documents his progress in meditation practice. You can get it as a free pdf download if you google it.

[rockyysdt]

Thank you TRD.

At this stage, in summary, how would you steer one (higher level and impart able at forum level) in terms of correct Mindfulness practice?

Is there a special quality or technique to adopt and/or should things to avoid?

Firstly, we have to get past terminology. I use Hindu/Vedic terminology while you identify yourself as a Buddhist and speak in those terms. However, that is not a problem for me. I respect everyone's views.

In terms of practice, I wanted to establish exactly what you mean by it, because you previously mentioned mindfullness. That often means different things to different people. If you mean that you passively observe your thoughts, sensory perceptions and actions then we get into a very subtle area of practice and experience that may not always be appropriate to discuss in a forum. I will always make myself freely available on a one to one basis over skype or meet up if that's possible to discuss individual practice because it requires an intimate dialogue that cannot be achieved in a forum. But in terms of discussing wider issues a forum is OK.

The sense of "I" is being created constantly. It is the fundamental primary thought that first appears in the conscious mind. If seeking realization, one should clearly understand that the I is not a stable entity, it is not a given and constant being. The I is in constant change, recreating itself at every moment, and that is why it is regarded as not real. You identify with it, but this identity is not you as far as The Self goes. Experiences, hopes, dreams, ideas and feelings interact constantly and this interaction produces the "I". Along side of this there is a tendency to identify with all this, and that tendency is the basic I-ness. Once one awakens, this tendency vanishes and there is no longer any I-ness, or I AM-ness. The interaction of the experiences, hopes, dreams, ideas and feelings still go on, but one is no longer involved in them. This is freedom. It is Oneness with Pure Being. It is "IS-ness", rather than "I AM-ness". When trying to sense the I-ness, one should be aware that it is mainly a feeling of being an individual, a someone. It is not something more or less definable, like an emotion or a thought. In terms of practice it is this that we want to abide in because turning ones attention to it dissolves the I leaving only awareness, being, emptiness. Rather than feast the mind, you need to fast the mind. It is when one becomes permanently established in that, that one can say I am realized. Once it happens it is irreversible.

The fact is, nothing can be said about this state except that it IS. The closest you can ever come to say what it is, is that it is IS-ness after you go beyond the realization that you are not the primal I AM-ness or the primal I-ness (which is the same). It is not even "nothingness", since this implies absence. It is not something you grow into, since this implies change of something unawakened into something more awakened. And you must realize that there is no longer a someone that has become something, because there is only you as the Self. Nor is it something that you get or reach or grow into, it is being who you already are prior to a sense of I-NESS.

What I call Self Realization is not the end though. There is still final Liberation. Even after Self Realization, although new karmas are not being created, there are still past karmas that need to burn themselves out, so there is still some identification with duality. Liberation happens only when all past karmas have been extinquished and everthing is then seen as Unity.

So is practice necessary after Realization? I can only say what I said before. As there is no me after Realization, who is there to practice? I often allow myself to be totally immersed in the bliss of silence to the exclusion of anything else because there is a pull in that direction, but I must emphasise that it is not a practice because there is nothing to be improved upon.

Now where does this get us. Even among the most enlightened masters of any tradition there have always been differences of opinion. You will know the Buddhist references better than I do, but for instance in the Hindu tradition there is advaita which says that there is only one thing and that is the Self (Atma). Shankara is the best known master of what is the prevailing view. But in Samkya, the view is that there are two things, consciousness and matter. The greatest exponent of this is a yogi called Patanjali whose eight limbed raja yoga (ashtanga) has filtered down into the modern age where mainly one of the eight limbs, namely asana (physical postures) has sadly become what most people think is yoga. But that's another subject.

So what I'm saying is, by all means expose yourself to all kinds of ideas and interpretations within Buddhist philosophy, but don't confuse this with direct experience because ultimately it won't matter.

By the way, one of the best descriptions I have read about spiritual progress and would recommend reading is from a book called Samana, the autobiography of Luangtua Maha Boowa, the late abbot of Udon Thani from the forest tradition. Not the first part which deals with family obligations etc, but the latter part where he documents his progress in meditation practice. You can get it as a free pdf download if you google it.

[trd]

This is a very specific question about practice which varies according to each individual and one that I would only discuss privately.

[fabianfred]

There can only be one Buddha at a time and the present one's dhamma is not due to disappear for another 2,500 or so years...until then no more Buddhas can come.

For what cosmological reason would there only be a single Buddha at any given time ?

I'm happy to hear your explanation from either the "inner" or "outer" perspective.

-Note; I don't seek argument. Just "scientific" cosmological knowledge.

Westerners like to get into the facts, figures, numbers and maths about things. It seems to help them get their minds around things, to get a grasp on what is involved. We don't like words like eternal, limitless, bottomless or infinate. Even the vastness of space must be measured and counted so that it can be understood and squashed into this little brain of ours. I can appreciate statements like "the numbers of stars in the universe are greater than the grains of sand on this earth".

However, Buddhist cosmology can knock all that into a teacup.

Most life stories of the Buddha just recount this last life or maybe also the previous 'Great' life, and for me don't start far enough back.

There is a word unique to Buddhism, called "asongkaya", or some such spelling. It means 'an incalculable period' but in fact can be written as the number 1 followed by 140 zeros!

There are three types of Buddhas. One practices (from the time a vow is made to become a Buddha, until enlightenment) for a period of 4 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa; another for 8 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa; and the third for 16 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa. The present Buddha (whose teaching is still extant) is of the first type, whilst the next Buddha (Marietreya) is of the third type.

Mahakapa is another term for aeon. Roughly eqivalent to the length of time from the begining, expansion, contraction and destruction of the universe. (After which ...it all happens again).

When asked 'how long is an aeon?' the Buddha replied..."imagine a mountain 10 miles wide, 10 miles long and 10 miles high, and once every 100 years a being appears and wipes the mountain over carefully with a very fine cloth. That mountain would sooner be rubbed away level with the ground before an aeon is completed."

When asked 'how many such aeons have gone past?' the Buddha replied..." Take the river Ganges, from its source to where it reaches the sea..... how many grains of sand lie between? Greater than this are the number of aeons which have passed."

There are two kinds of aeon... the Bare aeon and the Not-bare Aeon. In the Bare Aeon there are no Buddhas; the not-bare Aeon is of five types; those which have a single Buddha,those which have two or three or four or five Buddhas. We are extremely fortunate to be born in an aeon which has five Buddhas. We like to moan at the state the world seems to be in, getting worse not better, more killing and rape, murder, war etc. and we are now in the phase where the Buddhas teaching has been extant for over 2,500 years, so after 5,000 years it shall have disappeared from the earth completely and before that will be corrupted and altered by false monks until the true Dhamma will be difficult to find. Imagine how it will be to live in the world with no light in the darkness.

Some people believe that upon the disappearance of the last buddhas teaching, the next one will be born.....whoa..... not so fast. If five Buddhas are to make an appearance in this aeon, then it would be fair for them to be regularly spaced. Also one of the factors which the Buddha to be has to consider, whilst waiting in the Tushita heavens, before he decides the time is right to be born into his final life, is how long the average lifetime of a human is. If shorter than 100 years, then life would be too full of suffering and strife to be able to listen to his teachings. If longer than 100,000 years, then too pleasureable and with no knowledge of suffering to be able to understand his teaching.

At the Buddhas time the average life span was 100 years, and it decreases by 1 year each 100 years since his Parinibanna. Now after 2,500 years the average is 75 years. it will continue to decrease until the average is 10 years, at which time people will be able to give birth at 5 years. There will be nothing but strife and a time of the knives will happen, when people will go about freely killing each other like animals. Those who flee into the wilderness to hide, will come out after and start to practise morality again and keep the precepts. Lifespan will gradually increase again to 100,000 years, then start to fall. Upon reaching 80,000 years the next Buddha will arise and his teaching will last for 250,000 years.

So, 4 asongkaya and 100,000 mahakapa ago, there was a man called Sumedha living in the city of Amaravatti and on meeting the Buddha at that time vowed to be a Buddha on day. That Buddha saw his intention with his Dhamma-eye and proclaimed to the throng that this man would be a Buddha in the future. That was the third Buddha of four in that aeon, and after that the Boddhisatva received assurance from a further 24 Buddhas he met during the long rounds of rebirths throughout the ages.

It just goes to show how rare Buddhas are, and how rare aeons which are not-bare are. We are so extreemly fortunate that we mustn't waste a moment in trying to attain the safety of Stream-entry.

Suppose we make a lot of merit and get reborn in one of the deva realms. In the lowest, one day and night is equal to 50 years in the human realm, so after a long lifetime (maybe 1000 years...just guessing, maybe much more) which would be eqivalent to 20 million of our years, one might be reborn as a human.... and what will life be like then??... one might have missed the last buddhas teachings. And then you will have to wait for how many aeons before another chance to hear the Dhamma??

I find it awe inspiring as to just how vast the amount of time that a Buddha has to commit himself to perfecting the ten perfections, so that he can bring a light into the darkness and help beings escape from the realm of samsara.

One of the popular Thai monks, Ajarn Mun, who started the forest tradition in the North east, had earlier made a vow to become a Buddha but on reflection decided the weight of suffering to be expected in the future too much. After recanting his vow he was able to progress rapidly in his meditation and achieve Arahant. Those who make the Boddisatva vow are blocked from progressing to Nirvana, but it is nothing to be ashamed of to recant.

The next Buddha is the Maitreya Buddha, the fifth in this extremely fortunate aeon. He awaits the right time in the Deva realm of tusshita heavens (forgive my spelling...this is off the top of my head) as do all Buddhas before their final life.

The teachings of the present Buddha are fortold by him to last 5,000 years, after which time all trace of them will have vanished from the face of the earth. Of course, the Dhamma is a natural law and exists always, just like gravity. It exists whether anyone knows it, or believes in it all the same. But we have to wait for another Buddha to appear who will then re-discover it and teach it to the world. The four Noble Truths is too profound for anyone other than a Buddha to realise on his own.

We must be aware just how prescious our human life is, how rare, and how rare the very mention of the name Buddha is, let alone being born when his teaching is still extant and alive in the world, and being fortunate enough to meet it.

Twice, the Buddha bent down and brought up a little dust on his fingernail, asking his followers how did it compare with the amount of the vast earth... once to compare being born human as opposed to beings in all the other realms.... and another time to compare the ammount of suffering left to one who has achieved 'stream entry' as opposed to those who have not...

[fabianfred]

I have no idea who Buddhagosa was so I cannot comment.

He was a Theravada figure...being Mahayana you wouldn't...

[fabianfred]

I am talking of the same practice as you are which leads to an awakening which requires no further practice.

Why is it ordinary? Because it cannot be anything other than what you are. Are you expecting fireworks? Is the practice worth the effort to just be what you are. If you want to end suffering, it is.

I think you have this mythological image of the Buddha as some towering figure lost in the mists of time and what has come down to you are long complex texts which have been revised, interpreted and then re-interpreted. A kind of Da Vinci code that is difficult and near impossible to crack. The more difficult and esoteric it seems, the more valuable it becomes. In your lifetime you have probably passed several buddhas in the street without noticing.

It is obvious that your leanings are Mahayana ...not really the Thai Buddhism this forum is about.

When you say one might pass several Buddhas in the street....perhaps you are meaning boddhisattas....?

There can only be one Buddha at a time and the present one's dhamma is not due to disappear for another 2,500 or so years...until then no more Buddhas can come.

Also they are extremely rare beings...certainly not bumping into each other...

Naturally I am speaking from the Theravada perspective.

On what authority do you claim there can be only one Buddha at a time. You have a mere concept of what Buddha mind is. That is the fundamental problem. You are immersed in concepts and historical hearsay. All knowledge is ignorance.

How does it help your spiritual growth to say that I am of the mahayana persuasion rather than theravada. You will not progress as long as you are stuck in this kind of mindset.

Who the hell are you to tell me what I think or know and don't...

I think you have got ego problems...coming here and trying to sound all-knowing whilst running down others.

Naturally there are major differences of opinion between Mahayana and Theravada....so don't come preaching here...just stay with your own crowd if you cannot behave justly.

[trd]

I don't belong to any crowd. I am nothing. Believe nothing I say.

[RandomSand]

fabianfred, your reply is lengthy, and perhaps too much for me to fully take in right now, but I do appreciate your discourse and wealth of information provided.

Going over it quickly I see some things that I don't agree with - but then I'm not a Buddhist -such as our own positions as humans in Samsara...

Personally; it seem to me that we only exist as manifestations of Samsara. That is to say that we *are* samsara itself. If we say "we exist in samsara" then is this not thinking we have souls ?

Another thing (and this relates to # of Buddhas at any given time); If there was only a single Buddha at any given time (sorry If you properly addressed this but I don't see it by speed-reading your text); then are we to assume that the reason there can only be a single Buddha at only one time is because the Buddha is assuming the role of the first duality between the absolute oneness and the internal fragmentation of absolute oneness that arises as the conceptuality of Samsara ? If we say "Yes there is only one Buddha and Buddha is indeed the first duality" then the implication is that Buddha has the optionality of de-conceptualizing Samsara at a whim and thus our suffering. However; as I alluded (what follows is not counter-point to the previous sentence); If we don't agree that we do have souls, and we do exist purely as samsaric entities, then ask yourself this: is your "suffering" really relevant! Of course the take away is; why would you, or indeed the buddha, care about ending suffering if the suffering is actually only a deluded form of maya that only exists in samsara?

Edited February 7, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

We don't like words like eternal, limitless, bottomless or infinate.

If we were able to talk about such things then I see no reason why we shouldn't.

Admittedly; To talk about such things is by nature a limitation that we can't solve; but it shouldn't stop us trying to communicate.

[fabianfred]

fabianfred, your reply is lengthy, and perhaps too much for me to fully take in right now, but I do appreciate your discourse and wealth of information provided.

Going over it quickly I see some things that I don't agree with - but then I'm not a Buddhist -such as our own positions as humans in Samsara...

Personally; it seem to me that we only exist as manifestations of Samsara. That is to say that we *are* samsara itself. If we say "we exist in samsara" then is this not thinking we have souls ?

Another thing (and this relates to # of Buddhas at any given time); If there was only a single Buddha at any given time (sorry If you properly addressed this but I don't see it by speed-reading your text); then are we to assume that the reason there can only be a single Buddha at only one time is because the Buddha is assuming the role of the first duality between the absolute oneness and the internal fragmentation of absolute oneness that arises as the conceptuality of Samsara ? If we say "Yes there is only one Buddha and Buddha is indeed the first duality" then the implication is that Buddha has the optionality of de-conceptualizing Samsara at a whim and thus our suffering. However; as I alluded (what follows is not counter-point to the previous sentence); If we don't agree that we do have souls, and we do exist purely as samsaric entities, then ask yourself this: is your "suffering" really relevant! Of course the take away is; why would you, or indeed the buddha, care about ending suffering if the suffering is actually only a deluded form of maya that only exists in samsara?

your third paragraph....

Samsara is the name given to describe all the 31 realms from hells up to the highest non-material realms....we are in samsara...presently in the human realm which is fifth from the bottom...below us are the four realms of woe and constant suffering and above us are the heaven (deva realms) brahma realms etc.

It is not a concept but a fact. I know I exist and am human...

Your last para loses me...I think you are trying to complicate what is not.

"..because the Buddha is assuming the role of the first duality between the absolute oneness and the internal fragmentation of absolute oneness that arises as the conceptuality of Samsara ?..." I don't know what you've been reading but it looks to me that you've got indigestion.

A Buddha is a Buddha...he doesn't dream up samsara...he doesn't assume any roles....!!!???

[RandomSand]

It is not a concept but a fact. I know I exist and am human...

Tosh. What sort of statement is that to make in a Buddhist section of the forum.

Did you hear the story about the Chinese mystic who dreamt he was a butterfly. In his dream he only knew himself as a butterfly and had no conception otherwise. When he woke-up it came to him: How can I know I'm not a butterfly dreaming that I'm a Chinese man.

[fabianfred]

It is not a concept but a fact. I know I exist and am human...

Tosh. What sort of statement is that to make in a Buddhist section of the forum.

Did you hear the story about the Chinese mystic who dreamt he was a butterfly. In his dream he only knew himself as a butterfly and had no conception otherwise. When he woke-up it came to him: How can I know I'm not a butterfly dreaming that I'm a Chinese man.

And you say you are not a Buddhist... So you are here to learn.... Not dispute...

Sent from my GT-N8000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[RandomSand]

A Buddha is a Buddha...he doesn't dream up samsara...he doesn't assume any roles....!!!???

I even read that a Buddha is a natural manifestation of humanity's samsaric desire for a knowledgeable teacher

[RandomSand]

Buddha: I'm here to save you.

Idiot: Save me from what?

Buddha: Samsara.. it's not real.

Idiot: So why do I need to be saved if it's not real?

Buddha: Because of your suffering.

Idiot: I'm not suffering. I'm happy.

Buddha:

[fabianfred]

Why do you like making things up and then acting as if they are real?

Be happy with the Buddhas teachings...no need to invent your own....it doesn't make you sound wise.

we are trying to diminish the ego...not wave it about in other peoples faces.

[RandomSand]

Fred, respectfully; this thread was supposed to be about profound matters such as Dzogchen, Nibbana, Kunalindi and Chakras.

Whilst I've already got answers to some of the questions I had in mind, the conversation now runs-on and I personally don't have a problem with that.

...But with all due respect to the body of knowledge that exists within Buddhism; for what reason are you in this thread, saying that we can't comprehend such matters and that it's better to be happy with the Buddha's teachings?

On the one hand you accuse me of "making things up", and then you yourself go on to preach the dharrma, like it was the gospel truth.

Fred; if you're in a position to preach to anyone then I invite you to preach with your own words that you deem applicable to the situation. On the other hand, if you're not in a position to preach, then please try to refrain yourself.

[fabianfred]

To be honest this forum is about Thai Buddhism...and the very title includes subjects which are Mahayana and not a part of that... Kunalindi... dzogchen ... chakras.

As for myself... I've been a Buddhist for nearly forty years and a monk twice...last time for two years. I don't claim to know everything but what I write is based upon the pali scriptures.

[RandomSand]

That's great Thanks for sharing it with us.

[trd]

Fabianfred's responses show how identification and attachment to ego causes suffering. Good practice will eliminate this. Absorption in fairytales about how many aeons a buddhas damma prevails will not.