Trampling Deities

May 12, 2005

There is no icon of Kali "trampling" on shiva.

There is an icon of Kali standing above shiva.

The meaning is the exact opposite of what you think it is: it shows

that Kali is completly unable to hurt shiva even if the position is

reversed and she is standing or sitting above Shiva.

There is a similar symbolism involved when siva is the couch for

Mahatripurasundari and she is sitting on top of him. There is no harm

or degradation involved in that act.

----Hmm, an actual thought of yours or did you read this somewhere?

Shiva looks very happy here

http://www.kalimandir.org/library/images/is_kali_img1.jpg

Actually, he does look in bhava here though

http://www.energycenter.com/auction.folder/Kali2.JPG

Yes I can see from this picture below of Kalachakra why you are so upset

http://www.lecabinet.com/motel/images/c_wheel_of_time_kalachakra.jpg

And oh, it's so very different from this

http://www.sarimagic.com/batik/be98.jpg

I frankly don't understand your hatred of Buddhists, since you're obviously not

really even a tantrik practitioner. If you were you would have more esoteric,

and less bookish and conventional understandings. The Buddhist deities stand on

two legs but you don't even have one to stand one. Oh yeah, because they beg,

and get rich. Yeah right. The real problem is that your wedic tradition is

losing converts and therefore a wedic India is fast slipping from your dreams.

The real problem is that you are powerless to change that. The real problem is

that you're prejudiced and biased against an individual choosing a different

religion from the one in which they were born. The real problem is not Buddhism

at all but all other religions which you patently despise.

You're a bigot and a fascist. That is a real problem. Go back to the BJP

convention.

It's not important that you lump all Buddhists together as if they all utilize

some specific tradition. But what is important is that you have some unresolved

fear and anger at some general portion of the population as if they have no

right to exist. But they do exist, no matter what you say, so learn to live with

it, or die full of hatred. It's your life.

May 12, 2005

I thought you enjoy the discussions with me now you again start to

get nasty.

I do not dislike buddhists i was just joking with the car the vehicle

and the walk by feet this is only symbolism you see,(Yana= Vehicle)

and not in the least as "hardcore f,,,d up" intolerant desecrating

bloody stupid m and fa...(Yab Yum)-f...ing.symbolism as is used in

your buddhist "Tantras".

Please do not take my words to serious you are attaching more

importance to them then i myself do, and you are much more intersted

in my psychology and state of mind then i am.

I like you - i would not discuss anything with you if i would dislike

you i would ignore you. Sono pleasse by niice again, I do not like

loosing my best opponent.

> Thank you Sir: you can have your superior Vehicle i prefer walking

on > my own feet.

>

> ----So far, I see you only walking on the feet of others. You have

only shown that you dislike Buddhists, but still have never given a

single source for anything you have conjectured.

>

> ----Moreover, you say you walk on your feet but all your references

are merely pseudointellectual. that is, if they truely were

intellectual you would cite sources, and before even in your

kundalini expositions you merely quoted readily available teachings.

Nothing you have ever said has been your own. That's not walking on

your feet, it's being carried in the shakey rickshaw of your

imagination, by the feet of others who did the hard work for you.

>

> ----This is the greatest danger of mere bookishness, that one

thinks they have some experience but the only experience is that of

flipping pages. In this way you resemble most Catholics who think

by "The Book." Moreover the more you preach against Buddhism, the

more you become the very proselitizing pulpit pounder that you

despise. Better to beat your chest at King Kong.

>

May 12, 2005

I didn't curse at you if that's what you're getting at. I don't really

understand you sometimes. You always back off when I show that you're a rather

petty tyrant. If you actually liked arguing then again you would show sources

for your most extreme points of view. For example the anal ripping stuff. The

ganesha trampling stuff, and so on. All you are doing is decanting poison for

others to drink, and then running out the door to eat at your neighbors. I am

merely trying to throw the poisonous water out the window. It's not that I hate

you or something. That's not it. I just don't understand how you think you're

accomplishing something positive or productive. I'm still waiting for some

references.

The fact is that you know me less that I know you. In spite of me having come

out with many personal facts about myself. How can I be a Buddhist tantric and

still love Shiva and Kali. These are things that you may never understand though

someday I hope you do. Ironic that I am a Kalachakra initiate and yet I still

do love Kali and Shiva. Very ironic, while you won't say if you're any tantric

lineage at all and yet you despise all Buddhists and seem not to love kali or

Shiva either as their nature is of unity and peace, things which you are not

speaking of. Only of hatred and warring icons. The reality here is somewhat

larger. If you think I'm sparring with you then know that you have already lost

quite a long time back. You lost as soon as you hid your lineage for which you

yet name yourself, and you lost as soon as you tried to trample Buddha, which is

a big mistake, and you lost when you wouldn't give references for the most nasty

things you said, and you lost, for me. I am not sparring for fun but to set the

record straight.

Why are you hiding. We know what traditions Kochu, DB, Len, and many others here

represent. What do you represent? So far, an admixture of hatred, mistaken

bookish bigotry, and prejudice. These are the traditions I seek to trample.

-

mahahradanatha

Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:46 PM

Re: Trampling Deities

I thought you enjoy the discussions with me now you again start to

get nasty.

I do not dislike buddhists i was just joking with the car the vehicle

and the walk by feet this is only symbolism you see,(Yana= Vehicle)

and not in the least as "hardcore f,,,d up" intolerant desecrating

bloody stupid m and fa...(Yab Yum)-f...ing.symbolism as is used in

your buddhist "Tantras".

Please do not take my words to serious you are attaching more

importance to them then i myself do, and you are much more intersted

in my psychology and state of mind then i am.

I like you - i would not discuss anything with you if i would dislike

you i would ignore you. Sono pleasse by niice again, I do not like

loosing my best opponent.

> Thank you Sir: you can have your superior Vehicle i prefer walking

on > my own feet.

>

> ----So far, I see you only walking on the feet of others. You have

only shown that you dislike Buddhists, but still have never given a

single source for anything you have conjectured.

>

> ----Moreover, you say you walk on your feet but all your references

are merely pseudointellectual. that is, if they truely were

intellectual you would cite sources, and before even in your

kundalini expositions you merely quoted readily available teachings.

Nothing you have ever said has been your own. That's not walking on

your feet, it's being carried in the shakey rickshaw of your

imagination, by the feet of others who did the hard work for you.

>

> ----This is the greatest danger of mere bookishness, that one

thinks they have some experience but the only experience is that of

flipping pages. In this way you resemble most Catholics who think

by "The Book." Moreover the more you preach against Buddhism, the

more you become the very proselitizing pulpit pounder that you

despise. Better to beat your chest at King Kong.

>

Links

/

b..

c..

May 12, 2005

I am prejudiced against: prejudice, intolerance, superiority of one

race religion philosophy or caste over another. If tantric buddhism

exhibts these feature i will critize it no matter if you like it or

not.

If a Hindu posting is showing prejudice intolerance superiority of

one race religion or philosophy over another i will critice that also.

Up to now this has not happenend here, it is just a coincidence out

of my control that up to now, only budhhists showed this behaviour.

I am not much interested in buddhism hinduism kundalini etc. I have

posted here upto now only if people that have serious questions and

have posted here have been mistreated and attacked.

Religion and spiritual philosophys seem to be doing more harm than

good in the present age. They seem to only nourish the bad instead of

the good qualities. Now look at yourself and what you post now, so

much hate and arrogance just because i demand respect for the

feelings of someone else, (i am not even writing on my behalf) whose

feelings have been hurt by a misrepresentation of his gods (I am

talking about anandanath whose post started the thread.)

If you ask me about my opinion- i am not too much interested in the

subject of how the buddhist or hindus depict what.

I am interested in the way human beings treat each other. This should

include respect for each other. If this respect is not shown we have

the wrong attitude here, i am trying to correct that.

I think it would do you good to stop attacking me, it is a waste of

time.

> I frankly don't understand your hatred of Buddhists, since you're

obviously not really even a tantrik practitioner. If you were you

would have more esoteric, and less bookish and conventional

understandings. The Buddhist deities stand on two legs but you don't

even have one to stand one. Oh yeah, because they beg, and get rich.

Yeah right. The real problem is that your wedic tradition is losing

converts and therefore a wedic India is fast slipping from your

dreams. The real problem is that you are powerless to change that.

The real problem is that you're prejudiced and biased against an

individual choosing a different religion from the one in which they

were born. The real problem is not Buddhism at all but all other

religions which you patently despise.

>

> You're a bigot and a fascist. That is a real problem. Go back to

the BJP convention.

>

> It's not important that you lump all Buddhists together as if they

all utilize some specific tradition. But what is important is that

you have some unresolved fear and anger at some general portion of

the population as if they have no right to exist. But they do exist,

no matter what you say, so learn to live with it, or die full of

hatred. It's your life.

>

May 12, 2005

I do things my way, not your way or anyones elses way, i have the

right to do things my way.

I hurt no one, i disrespect no one.

If you do not like what i do it is fine with me

If you like it it is fine also.

It is of no concern to me. It is your decision

This is called "svecchaacharya" : The path of doing ones own will.

This implies having respect for one another.

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

> I didn't curse at you if that's what you're getting at. I don't

really understand you sometimes. You always back off when I show that

you're a rather petty tyrant. If you actually liked arguing then

again you would show sources for your most extreme points of view.

For example the anal ripping stuff. The ganesha trampling stuff, and

so on. All you are doing is decanting poison for others to drink, and

then running out the door to eat at your neighbors. I am merely

trying to throw the poisonous water out the window. It's not that I

hate you or something. That's not it. I just don't understand how you

think you're accomplishing something positive or productive. I'm

still waiting for some references.

>

> The fact is that you know me less that I know you. In spite of me

having come out with many personal facts about myself. How can I be a

Buddhist tantric and still love Shiva and Kali. These are things that

you may never understand though someday I hope you do. Ironic that I

am a Kalachakra initiate and yet I still do love Kali and Shiva. Very

ironic, while you won't say if you're any tantric lineage at all and

yet you despise all Buddhists and seem not to love kali or Shiva

either as their nature is of unity and peace, things which you are

not speaking of. Only of hatred and warring icons. The reality here

is somewhat larger. If you think I'm sparring with you then know that

you have already lost quite a long time back. You lost as soon as you

hid your lineage for which you yet name yourself, and you lost as

soon as you tried to trample Buddha, which is a big mistake, and you

lost when you wouldn't give references for the most nasty things you

said, and you lost, for me. I am not sparring for fun but to set the

record straight.

>

> Why are you hiding. We know what traditions Kochu, DB, Len, and

many others here represent. What do you represent? So far, an

admixture of hatred, mistaken bookish bigotry, and prejudice. These

are the traditions I seek to trample.

> -

> mahahradanatha

>

> Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:46 PM

> Re: Trampling Deities

>

> I thought you enjoy the discussions with me now you again start

to

> get nasty.

> I do not dislike buddhists i was just joking with the car the

vehicle

> and the walk by feet this is only symbolism you see,(Yana=

Vehicle)

> and not in the least as "hardcore f,,,d up" intolerant

desecrating

> bloody stupid m and fa...(Yab Yum)-f...ing.symbolism as is used

in

> your buddhist "Tantras".

>

> Please do not take my words to serious you are attaching more

> importance to them then i myself do, and you are much more

intersted

> in my psychology and state of mind then i am.

> I like you - i would not discuss anything with you if i would

dislike

> you i would ignore you. Sono pleasse by niice again, I do not

like

> loosing my best opponent.

>

> > Thank you Sir: you can have your superior Vehicle i prefer

walking

> on > my own feet.

> >

> > ----So far, I see you only walking on the feet of others. You

have

> only shown that you dislike Buddhists, but still have never given

a

> single source for anything you have conjectured.

> >

> > ----Moreover, you say you walk on your feet but all your

references

> are merely pseudointellectual. that is, if they truely were

> intellectual you would cite sources, and before even in your

> kundalini expositions you merely quoted readily available

teachings.

> Nothing you have ever said has been your own. That's not walking

on

> your feet, it's being carried in the shakey rickshaw of your

> imagination, by the feet of others who did the hard work for

you.

> >

> > ----This is the greatest danger of mere bookishness, that one

> thinks they have some experience but the only experience is that

of

> flipping pages. In this way you resemble most Catholics who

think

> by "The Book." Moreover the more you preach against Buddhism, the

> more you become the very proselitizing pulpit pounder that you

> despise. Better to beat your chest at King Kong.

> >

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

> /

>

> b..

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

May 12, 2005

You said,

I am prejudiced against: prejudice, intolerance, superiority of one

race religion philosophy or caste over another. If tantric buddhism

exhibts these feature i will critize it no matter if you like it or

not.

If a Hindu posting is showing prejudice intolerance superiority of

one race religion or philosophy over another i will critice that also.

Up to now this has not happenend here, it is just a coincidence out

of my control that up to now, only budhhists showed this behaviour.

I say, that you giveth and then taketh away. You say you hate "prejudice,

intolerance, superiority of one race religion philosophy or caste over another."

But then next sentence you reinforce these same things by saying, "it is just a

coincidence out of my control that up to now, only budhhists showed this

behaviour." This is simply not true. So Bwahahahhahahhaaa. Live and learn. You

invest alot of energy in things you care little about. Peace - Out....

May 12, 2005

Maybe it is useful to learn a little bit more about human behaviour.

Your the Rat and i am the scientist

So Bwahahahhahahhaaa. Live and learn. You invest alot of energy in

things you care little about. Peace - Out....

>

May 12, 2005

, Vaj <vajranatha@e...> wrote:

> Skipping up to

> Anuttarayogatantra, in order to provide a means of practice

> attractive to Shaivites and Kapalika mendicants and their

>followers,

> who were primarily outcastes, Mahasiddhas revealed tantras such as

> Hevajra, and so on;

Btw, Kapalika mata was founded by a vaishya and his shUdra student.

Some of the kApAlika practices were actually practiced by brAhmaNa-s

belonging to the atharvaNa veda.

Perhaps you were never aware of the above. Nor those buddhists who

theorised what you wrote. See! Blind leading the blind.

See the following research done by a couple of acquaintances of mine:

"The inscription from Nirmand village in the Kangra district in

Himachal Pradesh states that the king sharvavarman installed a li~nga

of kapAleshavara in around 576-580 AD. His successor samudrasena in

the 600s provided the nirmaNDa agrahAra to a school of atharvavedic

brahmins for preserving the atharvaNa shruti and maintaining the

kApAla rites."

The russian dude who keeps shouting that tantrics are close to

christianity(oh my godness!) and not mainstream hinduism -- seeing

the above inscription? :-) :-)

Also for those who praise tantra and in the heart of hearts hates

brahmins.

Having a strong agenda in one's mind does really makes people say

really stupid things.

>You do believe that evolution occurs,

> correct? You do believe in the law of karma, correct? Well then you

> have to recognize that many Hindu deities have the karma of ritual

> sacrifice connected to them.

Sic! You dont have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

No. karma of ritual sacrifice is not connected to them(i.e Hindu

deities). Silly.

>

> It's just a fact. Some tantras only exist in Tibetan Buddhism. Even

> popular practices like hatha-yoga in their original purity are lost

in

> their Hindu versions.

Unsubstantiated claims again. You display such ignorance of Hindu

tantra that I dont see a point in responding to your other posts.

To mahAhradanAtha:

>There is no exact historical evidence of what the Kapalikas exactly

>believed and where the sampradaya vanished or merged into.

They exist till date. Even if they dont exist as kApAlika-s per se,

there are people who still practice the deadly mAraNa and other rites

from the kApAlika tantra-s even today.

May 12, 2005

, Vaj <vajranatha@e...> wrote:

> Dear mahahradanatha:

>

> On May 12, 2005, at 2:00 PM, mahahradanatha wrote:

>

> > The meaning is the exact opposite of what you think it is: it shows

> > that Kali is completly unable to hurt shiva even if the position is

> > reversed and she is standing or sitting above Shiva.

>

> Not even close! It is a coded instruction in the twilight-language

for

> specific practices regarding the "corpse position".

>

There is more than one explanation and my explanation includes yours as

well as others you dont know about always remember:the pot is included

in space not the space included in the post.

May 12, 2005

Kalachakra doesn't trample them either, he/they merely are standing on them as

well.

-

satisharigela

Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:48 PM

Re: Trampling Deities

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

> The question was why does Kalachakra trample Rudra and Kamadev?

The

>answer I am told by people I questioned is that all tantras depict

the

>previous gods and goddesses being trampled under the new form of

>religion. Shaivitte tantras were replaced by Kali tantras and

>therefore show Kali trampling Shiva. Most tantras in general were

>playing in one form or another upon already extant Shivagamas and so

>used the common imagery of trampling upon Shiva to advance their

>superiority.

Kali doesnt trample shiva. She stands on shiva.

If you observe other forms of Devi there are seated by the side of

shiva. One cannot compare the buddhist devata-s trampling hindu

deities

and Kali standing on shiva. Kali standing on Shiva has a philosphical

significance. I dont know if bauddha devata-s trampling hindu deities

is of such philosophical imagery.

Above passage displays a gross misunderstanding of the shAkta view of

the concept of shiva and shakti.

You are right that shaivagamas are the oldest.

Anybody can paint anything.

Links

/

b..

c..

May 12, 2005

On May 12, 2005, at 4:16 PM, satisharigela wrote:

> , Vaj <vajranatha@e...> wrote:

>

> > Skipping up to

> > Anuttarayogatantra, in order to provide a means of practice

> > attractive to Shaivites and Kapalika mendicants and their

> >followers,

> > who were primarily outcastes, Mahasiddhas revealed tantras such as

> > Hevajra, and so on;

>

> Btw, Kapalika mata was founded by a vaishya and his shUdra student.

>

> Some of the kApAlika practices were actually practiced by brAhmaNa-s

> belonging to the atharvaNa veda.

>

> Perhaps you were never aware of the above. Nor those buddhists who

> theorised what you wrote. See! Blind leading the blind.

>

Certainly nothing new to me.

> >You do believe that evolution occurs,

> > correct? You do believe in the law of karma, correct? Well then you

> > have to recognize that many Hindu deities have the karma of ritual

> > sacrifice connected to them.

>

> Sic! You dont have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

> No. karma of ritual sacrifice is not connected to them(i.e Hindu

> deities). Silly.

Not Hindu deities in general--specific deities. Don't try to generalize

something that was not meant that way.

>

> >

> > It's just a fact. Some tantras only exist in Tibetan Buddhism. Even

> > popular practices like hatha-yoga in their original purity are lost

> in

> > their Hindu versions.

>

> Unsubstantiated claims again. You display such ignorance of Hindu

> tantra that I dont see a point in responding to your other posts.

Great then show me the lineal practice of nada-bindu-vayu in the Hindu

tradition a la the Unification of the Sun and Moon tantra. Show me the

original Indian tantras for attainment of the rainbow body. They no

longer exist.

May 12, 2005

This is a misunderstanding again, he does trample on them because to

the buddhist tantrics they symbolise demonic evil tendencies.

In the same way as the demon mahisa symbolises evil tendecies in the

Story connected with the slaying of the buffallo demon.

Only that the buddhist tantrics felt the need to degrade other faiths

by using Deities to symbolise evil tendencies, thereby they have

unfortunately been degrading their own state.

I can only recommend to the buddhist practioners to stop visualizing

their evil tendencies in the form and with the names of Hindu

Deities. Just imagine some human form and do not identify this form

with the deities of other religion. Do not practice mahakala Sadhanas

where he is torturing ganapati.

The Sadhanas are dangerous and will accumulate a lot of bad karma if

they are practiced with Visualizations that are concerned with

inflicting pain, death or humilations to Hindu or other deities.

> Kalachakra doesn't trample them either, he/they merely are standing

on them as well.

> -

> satisharigela

>

> Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:48 PM

> Re: Trampling Deities

>

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

wrote:

> > The question was why does Kalachakra trample Rudra and Kamadev?

> The

> >answer I am told by people I questioned is that all tantras

depict

> the

> >previous gods and goddesses being trampled under the new form of

> >religion. Shaivitte tantras were replaced by Kali tantras and

> >therefore show Kali trampling Shiva. Most tantras in general

were

> >playing in one form or another upon already extant Shivagamas

and so

> >used the common imagery of trampling upon Shiva to advance their

> >superiority.

>

> Kali doesnt trample shiva. She stands on shiva.

> If you observe other forms of Devi there are seated by the side

of

> shiva. One cannot compare the buddhist devata-s trampling hindu

> deities

> and Kali standing on shiva. Kali standing on Shiva has a

philosphical

> significance. I dont know if bauddha devata-s trampling hindu

deities

> is of such philosophical imagery.

>

> Above passage displays a gross misunderstanding of the shAkta

view of

> the concept of shiva and shakti.

> You are right that shaivagamas are the oldest.

>

> Anybody can paint anything.

--

----------

> Links

>

> /

>

> b..

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

May 12, 2005

Vajranath !

>

> Well one could certainly say the same of Neo-Hinduism. How many

> converts do we have from Mahesh Yogi, Osho and ISHKON? Millions.

I thought we where talking about doctrines connected with the so

called "tantras" ? This is a completly different pair of shoes.

> Without knowing which "original Nath-sampradaya" you are referring

to

> or specifically which two tantras you are comparing it's hard to

even

> respond to this. Numerous Buddhist tantras speak of Vajra-nature,

the

> indestructible quality of ultimate reality.

I am writing about a doctrine that is concernend with a meditative

awareness that is the goal of all buddhist tantras of the anuttara

class, aiming at the realisation of the clear light either achieved

during the death process or with a mudra. The main experience that

should ideally be triggered is to realise the impermanence of even

the indestructible drop in the heart (called jivatma in hindu

philosophy)

It should not be too hard to respond without having recourse to a

specific tantra.

The same goes for the natha doctrines it is also univeral

acknowledged in all saiva schools that atma jnana is the aim not

anatma jnana.

That is way the saiva meditation aims to establish the unity between

jivatama and paramatma and ultimatly shiva shakti.

>From the outside the methods may seem to be similar but they are not,

Buddhism uses the outward form only while following differnt aims.

The Vajra conceived as indestructible is not applied to the state of

the drop but to the realisation that the drop is impermanent, this is

the main difference between hinduism and buddhism so to say.

That is something you definitly should think about, maybe after all

you are not a buddhist, and you dont want to get rid of the beautiful

jewel like jivatmaa fter all. What will you do if you sit there in

pralaya with your atma miles away tucked safely in an unknown place

and no shaman to get you out of this mess? Better you think about

this now before its too late.

> If you understand the intent of these tantras, the depiction is

never to humiliate or trample Gods, but as symbols of ignorance.

I'm sure that doesn't make you feel any better,

Oh thank you i am fine i feel well.

But i doubt it is only a symbolism the people that evolved the

iconography were definitly of the opinion that the corresponding

deities are in the state of mind they represent and have to be

transformend by force this is clearly stated in some tantras.

That this has not been generally so is another matter for instance

the Hevajara Tantra has a different approach towards shiva and the

Hindu Deities.

but neither does the usage of

> Hindu divinities for black magic, sacrifice, etc. as far as I'm

> concerned. See my previous message on Shiva and Parvati for an

example.

Now i cannot follow you anymore...sorry...people and animals get

killed everywhere no matter what religion - all the tibetans are non-

vegetarians i bet there are more animals slaughtered by tibetan

buddhists than by Hindus ( % percentagewise of course ) because most

hindus are vegetarians, whereas most if not all tibetans eat meat,

also the american and european sangha are mostly non vegetarians.

The tibetan tantrics killed huge amounts of their own kin and of the

Bon po because of religious motives.

If you compare the rituals in the buddhist tantras connected with

killing and harming they are proportional much higher than the

helpful rites, whereas if you look at Hindu tantras the opposite is

true.

> > This argument is dangerous and has been used to legitimate

murder and

> > killing rites in the budhhist tradition.

>

> Then you should have no problem citing an authoritative and

specific > example.

of course you just have to take a closer look at the tibetan history

and the arguments that were used to defend and excuse the amss

slaughter of Nyimga Lmas and other atrocities against the Bonpo.

It was not so long ago that there have been murder complots waged

against the Dalai Lama by a fanatic tantric sect of a certain

Dharmapala.

> > The Christian church fathers used a similar argument in the witch

> > hunts. They argued that through the flames of the fire the witch

> > would be cleanend of her sins and it was for the good of the

witch

> > that she was burned.

>

> I seriously doubt that Christians have a concept such as wrathful

> compassion--the ideal of which is to convert anger and wrath into

> mirror-like awareness. If you could post an authoritative reference

to such an inner practice, I'd love to hear it!

Now this is about real people who have been burned killed and were

tortured. I do not think this is funny or that one should crack jokes

about human suffering. Please do your own research and compare the

arguments of the witch hunters with those that ordered the mass

killings of Nyimgmapa Lamas in tibetan history.

Both have thought that by wrathful compassion they were doing those

they killed a favour.

But as i wrote before things like that can happen everywhere.

And like i said in another post i tend to believe that religion can

do more harm than good if it is not guided by tolerance and respect.

May 12, 2005

----I'm laughing...

I am writing about a doctrine that is concernend with a meditative

awareness that is the goal of all buddhist tantras of the anuttara

class, aiming at the realisation of the clear light either achieved

during the death process or with a mudra. The main experience that

should ideally be triggered is to realise the impermanence of even

the indestructible drop in the heart (called jivatma in hindu

philosophy)

----Nonsense, again prestidigitation. No tantra says anything of this sort. It's

very mean spirited of you to make such claims without references. Oh Great Nath.

Out of curiousity, are you a descendent of Dadaji?

It should not be too hard to respond without having recourse to a

specific tantra.

----Why shouldn't it be hard since you're shooting arrows at the sky, should we

run about with a target hoping they'll fall somewhere near the bullseye. It's

for you in defining your target to shoot with an aim. So far there's no target.