Lama Yeshe: Buddhist Kundalini? [Kundalini]

[Guest guest]

I really consider this all off topic. I only like to discuss matters

that are connected with the discussion and argument in question. For

the sake of a fruitful discussion, please abstain from personal

attacks. IMHO the thread is getting unreadable.

 

You cannot order me to take the Word of Lama Yeshe as the final

Authority on kundalini, i am entitled to have a differing opinion.

So please abstain from your abusive language.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

 

I never said anything about your state of mind, except that your

presumptiveness shows bias towards yourself as opposed to the

humility which one expects from an aspirant.

[Guest guest]

I am only saying that Lama Yeshe is a Buddhist lama, or was, and that he used

the term kundalini, and so as that is fact how could you possibly argue about

whether kundalini is part of Buddhist teachings or not? Hahah. It's so silly.

Kundalini has been a part of recent Buddhist tantra teachings, and was a part of

them previously, and will continue to be a part of them, whether you know about

that or not. You are not an expert, in spite of your scholarly pretentions. And

if you are an expert then you're a Buddhist who talks about kundalini. If you're

not a Buddhist then you cannot say for sure now can you?

-

mahahradanatha

Friday, April 29, 2005 10:23 AM

Lama Yeshe: Buddhist Kundalini? [Re: Kundalini]

 

 

I really consider this all off topic. I only like to discuss matters

that are connected with the discussion and argument in question. For

the sake of a fruitful discussion, please abstain from personal

attacks. IMHO the thread is getting unreadable.

 

You cannot order me to take the Word of Lama Yeshe as the final

Authority on kundalini, i am entitled to have a differing opinion.

So please abstain from your abusive language.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

 

I never said anything about your state of mind, except that your

presumptiveness shows bias towards yourself as opposed to the

humility which one expects from an aspirant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

And yet I am a Buddhist who wears rudraksha, and who also worships Siva as a

protector. Are you saying that I am not a Buddhist? I have the card to prove it,

and my lamas don't turn me out in the cold for having my own views. I just keep

my priorities straight. 3x Gem first, protectors second. That doesn't mean that

I would not serve God wholeheartedly if God wished. Just that I would not

consider that realization could be had without 3x Gems. I am refutation of

everything you say. Because I exist your arguments are unfounded. When I die

then you may have your rationalist explanations and develop your following for

your materialist and intellectual circumlocution. But until then, don't confuse

the Buddhist Rudra with the Hindu and Dravidian Siva, and with the great Nyingma

protector Lha Chenpo. Your expertise is cranial and not heartfelt or heart

serving, nor of the truth nor of the essence.

 

My whole thrust originally was to show that the kundalini responds best to

simple heart felt devotion, and that crosses all lines and boundaries. I

maintain that that universal stance is more favorable to the Divine, and that to

think and be otherwise is separatist, self defeating, and therefore immoral and

purely the source of conflict. I also maintain that you cannot win this argument

because you never had the clout to begin with in the terms portrayed.

Furthermore, the smaller thinker will gain the hardcore and stringent converts

to their view but it will be the most limited perspective, and not the most

universal, thereby creating another mere cult of personality, us versus them,

and all the other ideological and common errors which maintain the world in its

present state of war. You will never get my point until you give up, and until

you give up you will not find the simple truth of things as they are without

intellectual blindsiding. This I knew about you from your first post. You are

your own worst enemy. Not I. I am merely pointing out to you where your

intellect has gaping holes. Basically everywhere, not because you're ill

meaning, or a bad person, but merely because you're trusting in samsaric means

to solve your delimmas, and not in Divine means. If some one viewpoint was

correct then that would simply be 'the way' and all else would follow. The fact

of the necessity for 100,000,000 means for just as many people shows that all

your facts are merely good for you, but not for all.

 

To wit, if liberation has a cause then liberation will cease when the cause is

removed. But if liberation is forever then it is present right now and will

always be present. You can't have it both ways. Consider yourself hereby

empowered by these words to be all that you can be, and forget what you've spent

so much time trying to learn as it's as useless as toilet paper. It hasn't

helped you, and it's not helping those around you. You are only spouting off for

your own ego, but not to help. Because of what help is knowledge of the five

pranas. Oh look more suicide attacks. The old traditions are not working, they

are not helping, and they are not going to exist much longer.

 

New traditions are needed. Traditions based in heart and immediacy.

 

Any exposition that forsakes the present moment is utterly lost. Now is the only

thing that's real. Stop hiding Nath. Your samaya is to spread the universality

of truth, not some confused secularization of some mythos.

-

mahahradanatha

Friday, April 29, 2005 10:13 AM

Lama Yeshe: Buddhist Kundalini? [Re: Kundalini]

 

 

Of course not, all are considered minor worldly deities who live in

Devaloka and are bound by their pride to remain in samsara.

Shiva is considered especially "evil" by many tantric buddhists.

 

They think that mahesvara has infected the world with the five poisons

to viz. lust, hate, ignorance, pride, and doubt.

The Buddhist tantrics say that he ruled the world was subjugated only

after a long fight.

 

Only that person is considered a buddhist who takes refuge only to the

Buddha the dharma and the sangha nand he must promise to be faithful to

buddha only and not worship so called worldly gods.

 

 

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

> So I guess also there is no Siva or Shakti in Buddhist tantra?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

/

 

b..

 

c..