Who are the Masters?

Discussion in 'Alternative' started by taijasi, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is funny, despite nothing happening from the beliefs, still someone will cling.

    It is because the ego has invested much learning this nonsense, I try to point it out and I am trolling. Truth transforms you, it is unmistakable, if you are not transformed it is only possible that you have found something false.

    I could be the second coming of Jesus, learning what will be necessary for his unveiling, still the ego will fight and I will be back on the cross.

    Yet, even in this environment, the world thinks such a man will come...
     
  2. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    See, this is precisely why (IMHO) we should focus on the "enlightened experience" or "awakening existence"--the subjective inner thingedness of the beyond, not the road to the beyond or an explanation of the beyond.

    As you know, that is my 2 sense.
     
  3. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree whole heartily.

    Interfaith understanding can only be found at the peak, but then faith is dropped, for now there is a knowing.

    It is a very strange thing, but trying to show the door to the ultimate is never accepted - you yourself have essentially accused me of trying to convert people I believe. I am not trying to convert at all, there is nothing to convert to, there is only truth and all share it ultimately.

    Andrew has apparently requested I be deleted from the site, I honestly hope it happens - I would have deleted myself but I cannot find such an option. I have not signed up here to debate petty topics, I have signed up to assist people in finding out what is the same in all religion.

    It is pointless though, mind is the master for too many here. It is somewhat inevitable, for mind must be used to read what I say, I do not know how to get through to peoples hearts this way.

    If the heart cannot hear, it is pointless to speak.
     
  4. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Radarmark (please note, Lunitik is on my ignore list):

    And who will you ask to explain to you what it is like as you are learning about these types of conciousness or experience? Certainly not our resident troll!

    Note, please, that I'm not disagreeing ... although this thread is on the Masters. As such it does presume to discuss them, to address the reality of their existence and it also has touched on one *small part* of what has been taught about how they became Masters.

    Initiation is by no means the end of the discussion, or even its most important component! I'd say it's best to get complicated stuff out of way near the beginning ...

    I don't want to answer my own question (above), so I'll put it to you again: Who do we ask?
     
  5. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    We ask the one who has guided even these "Masters".

    The true Guru is always the same, the fleshly lamps only glow from that light.

    It is as the moon lights the night sky, it is only the reflection of the sun glimmering from it.

    Eventually we find that sun ourselves, now we are the moon.

    Why study what the moon looked like 2,000 years ago when it is shining tonight? It is simply foolish, for your studies will never result in finding the light, it is just words and numbers you are studying.
     
  6. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    We need ask no one. There are an infinate number of paths to the divine, as there are an infinate number of names.

    You pick and choose... who to read, who to hear, who to follow.

    Pick up "Shiva Vigyama Upanishad" or "One River". Read, understand, reflect, try it on. Put on the mind of christ. If it works, do it. If not, abandon it.
     
  7. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    The true Master knows he is nothing but a street sign "God, 1/2 mile".

    What more can he do but point the way? If you do not heed the sign you will be lost, some enjoy getting lost because now the mind can engage in figuring out the way back. The problem is the mind doesn't know the way back...

    I know that something in AndrewX knows the truth of my words, but mind fights. It is plain because he has felt to message and make a point of ignoring. Mind feels threatened, he is close, but mind filters everything I say. What a strange thing, simply looking at his reaction he will see there is something there. Why not simply ignore me and be done? It is because he is running in two directions, his being is running to me and not letting the mind drop it, but the mind wants to get away.

    Such is the state of man.
     
  8. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that people become identified with what they have read, they are not willing to admit it hasn't worked - they think it is working, but if it had they would have experienced oneness, the search would have stopped.

    People have a strange notion of what the purpose of religion is, they think it is a guide to life, they do not see it is actually a guide on how to die that you can be reborn. Every religion says you have to give yourself to receive God, to know God. It is easy though, these people are no longer on this earth so they can ignore such things. They can decide their own meanings and feel content, reassured.

    This is not the point.

    There are many ways to reassure the mind, to cause trust in your being, but there is only one path to the ultimate: surrender. Which direction you go, whether towards nothingness or towards the whole (whether you drop or merge duality), eventually you have to surrender what you are. This is a universal truth...

    The "paths" do nothing but cause you to come to this point, none can save you, you will have to save yourself. It is a paradox though, you have to go into a type of death, a type of extinction to know that which cannot die within. It has to be so, how will you attain deathlessness when you have not died? This is the meaning of the many faiths proclaiming resurrection and twice born, it means you must give birth to yourself.

    This is what is necessary, you can do it this moment - there is no reason to delay. Mind will want you to put it off though, for the death is of the mind. You can use the mind instead, you can go beyond, but still the mind will die eventually - it is just now you are starving it instead of being swift, it is less humane.
     
  9. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    I pretty much agree with what you say ("indicate"). However, we have differing ways of expressing ourselves. That's all.
     
  10. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I do appreciate the response. I disagree, however. I do not believe that anyone will do, or that any path is the same as any other. If that were the case, I'd still be a drugged out hippie in the 60s, and life would not have presented me with lessons which brought that experience - and lifetime - to an end.

    I know that for many people, the Master is not at all the same as taught in Theosophical and similar schools. Yet I would add something which goes hand in hand with the idea of the Mahatmas, taught via H.P. Blavatsky but also by esoteric teachers since. It is made clear that the first Master is the Soul, the `Master within the Heart.'

    If the Disciple has not yet learned contact to contact his Master there (again, the SOUL) he will not find Him elsewhere. This is Biblical, it is taught in both Buddhism as well as Hinduism, and in fact, I don't think you'll find any exoteric religious teaching which does not advocate it.

    There is no point turning to esoteric teachings unless one has discovered this truism. And when we have ceased to simply regard it *as* a tautology, THEN we may find ourselves advancing on the path ... and before we realize it, meeting a Master according to the next needed technique, method or step (becomes possible, but not before).

    Some disciples will never meet their Teacher in the flesh. Alice Bailey never met the Tibetan Master in this way, although he did send her incense from Tibet (or India, I forget) ... and technically he wasn't her own Master, anyway. Still, her case and the case of HPB are somewhat unique.

    That said, I know that many hundreds, probably many thousands of individuals in the world today have had a direct encounter, with one or more Masters, and they have known it to be exactly such. They have not forgotten it, nor will they ever in the current incarnation. Some will retain the impressions in future lifetimes, as well.

    The importance of this is that we must not believe, assuming we are students of esotericism, that there are no specific teachings on Discipleship, its requirements, Initiation, the Path of Service and the Masters as individual beings, whatever their level of spiritual attainment.

    So, with that in mind I will again acknowledge that for many there is an appeal to the notion that `Truth is a Pathless Land.' I disagree, and I think we must either understand precisely what Krishnamurti actually meant by this (and his words are greatly misinterpeted, as even he was in error when he spoke them, *certainly* given the context which 99% of students will not grasp) ... or recognize that a simple explanation can be provided.

    The Master in the Heart is the FIRST Master to the Disciple, and this does not change, even once s/he has finally - in some incarnation - met a member of the Hierarchy (an Adept or Master) in the flesh, or in meditation, etc. This gets us back to the thread topic, and although I'm not seeking anyone's personal, private experiences (on this subject), I'm definitely interested in anything anecdotal ... or related.

    Earlier there was mention of Osho, so I'll toss out another name or two. I was interested some time ago in the teachings of Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov. I never read much, but it had some kind of appeal. There are many for whom the Guru ideal will never cease to appeal in the current lifetime. Many are devotees, influences strongly by the 6th Ray at the head of which we find the Nazarene Chohan. Others similarly harken back to the Guru-shishya relationship which has conditioned Humanity (via the 6th Ray) for the past two thousand years. This is increasingly superseded in the New Era by Group Discipleship.

    There is a teacher in the tradition of Alice Bailey's writings, Torkom Saraydarian, who also appeals to me, although I find his emphasis quite heavy on the discipline. This seems either 1st Ray or 6th Ray (Master Jesus is described as fairly stern, even martial) ... yet I have some of his books, and I fully respect his contributions. Nor do I disagree! One excellent book of his is called Christ, Avatar of Sacrifical Love, and at the outset it helps considerably to distinguish between the Master Jesus and the World Teacher, or Christ/Bodhisattava/Imam Mahdi/Saoshyant/etc.

    Are there others, not yet mentioned, who some people find inspiring and either believe to be Masters or to teach so clearly, with such Loving Compassion, that clearly they are on the Road to self-Mastery ... either embodying the Bodhisattva Ideal (as certainly does His Holiness the Dalai Lama) or the Christian Way (as Mother Teresa)?
     
  11. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Nope. Hui-Neng needed no-one. He was the last Patriarch of Buddhism. He was Buddha. You can believe what you want, but his existence disproves your theory.
     
  12. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Like I said, it appeals to you. Unless you care to clarify. My theory?

    Technically, neither the Buddha nor the Christ would have "had a Master" in the sense I am describing ... insofar as both men achieved their soul's liberation in much earlier existences. The same applies to several other individuals.

    How does this disprove my theory in the least? Further, each man would definitely have sought the Master in the Heart ... and if Hui Neng (?) didn't do this, I'm now Ludwig von Beethoven. Would you like to hear (bad joke omitted) my rendition of the 5th? ;)

    I trust you will decline!
     
  13. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Read him, read his "Platform SUtra". If you think he needed a Master to go beyond, you are entitled to that belief. He is/was Buddha (by any Mahayana worth their salt, 36th Patriarch, sixth Zen Patriarch), so unless you want to state he was somehow pre-born or pre-destined to reach Buddhahood (which makes no sense at all per any Sutra I ever read), your theory "that each man needs a Master" does not work. If Buddha and Jesus did not, it doesn't work either.

    See if Gautama and Jesus were ever men, then by your theory they needed a Master. Nope. Not in your wildest dreams. So, unless you want to postulate that Bucddha, Jesus, Hui-Neng and any other being who went beyond was not a human being, you are caught in an endless do-loop.

    If Buddha was human and he did not have to have a teacher, neither does anyone else.
     
  14. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Speaking of Hui-Neng, who I had to look up real quick on Wiki, I found the following quote relevant:
    With those who are sympathetic
    Let us have discussion on Buddhism.

    As for those whose point of view differs from ours
    Let us treat them politely and thus make them happy.
    (But) disputes are alien to our School,
    For they are incompatible with its doctrine.

    Within, keep the mind in perfect harmony with the self-nature; without, respect all other men.
    Such is perfect advice for Interfaith, as for all else in life. It could well be spoken BY one of the Mahatmas, for "our School" is what is being referred to here, not the Zen Path alone, or even specifically. Disputes are easy when there are different points of view. Views on what?

    Exactly.

    It is also said, to address any ONE member of the Hierarchy (or Masters) is the same as addressing any other. In simple terms, they share one Consciousness ... thus to confuse is to interject our own, personality faults, including Sakkyaditti, the mistaken view (delusion) of separateness.

    So we can see what Hui-Neng was talking about, even if our realization isn't quite there yet. Or, as I have pointed out on other threads, we CAN have the intellectual realization ... and so long as we don't reify it, or mistake THIS for actual enlightenment (as has our friend Lunitik), then it becomes helpful as we continue walking the Path.

    Asked how we can best practice the Dharma, the typical reply is a koan. But when it is pointed out how well we are doing thus and such, likewise, the reply will be, It is better to practice the Dharma.

    Some do not have a mind suited to appreciating the Eastern teachings, and in such cases, western scholasticism, theology and endless debates are all that seem to appeal. There are some good Catholics I know who could benefit WORLDS by just a few minutes of Zazen ... and I'm sure I know a Buddhist or two that couldn't be hurt by a couple of years in a medieval monastery.

    Hey, it's been a looooong time since the experience at Krotona called Akoustikoi! ;) :D :)
     
  15. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I added to my post; you might take another look. But no, I don't believe he was a Master or Buddha. Maybe an arhat, almost certainly so. If he is A-sekha, I wouldn't be surprised. But no, not a Buddha, not even by virtue of many former lifetimes. My thoughts, my errors. I take full responsibility! ;)

    Yeah, see my post ... I did add some clarification, above.

    Technically, no ... neither was Jesus born human, nor the Buddha. In esoteric teaching, a 3rd degree Initiate is technically an entrant into the Kingdom of Souls (or Heaven). This is the 5th Kingdom, and it's definitely distinct from the 4th Kingdom [Humanity] or lower kingdoms (3rd, 2nd & 1st are animal, vegetable & mineral, respectively).

    Jesus reached this point when he was Joshua, High Priest, a few hundred years before. The Buddha? I don't know.

    Hui-Neng was obviously an Initiate, yet much more than that I cannot say. My money says he ain't no Buddha. Yes, I would wager. But do you see the point? Now we have disgraced this very Master, in a sense ... and the question will be: What could it possibly prove to argue further? ;)

    This is why, there is ONE Master, in the Heart ... and until then, devotion to external images, mummies, books, gurus, flowers & beads, LSD, evangelists on TV, and anything else you can think of (sex, fast cars, widescreen tvs) ... it's all a sidetrack.

    I fully respect your choice of a path to enlightenment. But as with Lunitik I think I'll say, put your money where your mouth is. Because we're here, because we're discussing, and because we definitely have mutual interest, we are used to cutting each other a bit of slack.

    Hui-Neng, it sounds like, knew why this must, and should, be so. He knew that it is useless to argue with a man who cannot agree on certain things, but I don't think either you or I fits that bill. After all, I'm not telling you there's anything wrong with what you belive; I'm simply saying I believe something different. I certainly have good reasons for what I believe, and I've shared some, will share more.

    I might ask you, simply and directly, WHY do you tend to believe that these men did not have Masters, even in the sense of a Guru, or more enlightened One. After all, if you press me, I will certainly insist that this is the case (as far as *I* believe) in each of their cases. Yes, both Buddha and Jesus (and/or the Christ) would have had `Teachers.' But then we leave the scale of what is reasonable for a conversation here, on an open forum, where people have such great variance in background and intention, experience and passion, etc.

    In short, I think we'd better just settle with the notion that in former lifetimes it is possible to reach a very high point of attainment, and THEN it's apparent why some are born with no need for a Master ... or having ALREADY attained to that stage, wherein the Master is already a part of one's OWN Consciousness - although this in itself is a VERY high point of attainment. You see? I can agree with this quite easily, and I think it shows we aren't on separate pages after all. If so, no big deal, but I'd rather pursue it - if at all - by asking you WHY you believe as you believe ... NOT by telling you why I believe something different. At least not at first.
     
  16. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Believe what thy wilt. it runs 180 degrees from the Pali Sutras, The Patriarchy of Buddhism, and (what I believe to be) common sense.
     
  17. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    You do not see it. I say "get a Master", "have a Master", "it may be impossible to go beyond without one". But at the same time I deny one must have one. Gautama Buddha did not. By any Mahayana school I have ever heard of (since he was Last Patriarch--that is the last one in the chain going directly back to Gautama--the thirty-sixth) he is Buddha by the Gautama's own words. As the Sixth Ch'an (Chinese) Pateriarch he founded "sudden school" and said the Patriarchy had ended, thus he was first Zen Master.

    Don't agree with that, you do not have to. But traditional Buddhist Schools all say he was 36th and last Patriarch, 6th and last Ch'an Patriarch. All Zen schools see him as a founder. What that means he was Buddha. Again, you do not have to accept that. I have no sake in this.

    Let me repeat, it is my belief that Daijin Huineng is Buddha (at one with Gautama). I futher believe he and Gautama were both just human beings. And neither had a Master. Therefore, by logic, one does not require a master.

    See, I am not saying your belief in a master is wrong (whatever that would mean). But your assertion that one must have a master is demonstratably incorrect.

    Premises
    1) Buddha was a human being
    2) Buddha did not have a master
    3) Buddha went beyond.

    Conclusion
    The go beyond a human being does not have to have a Master.

    If the premises are true and as sure as night follows the day, the conclusion is.

    So, I put it to you: if one "must have" a master, tell me where is the fault in logic or which of the three premises you do not accept as true. Simple.
     
  18. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe buddha to be one of the heavenly beings sent to earth that incarnated into the human body......as the bible says....I have sent ye saviours.
     
  19. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    I can do that.
     
  20. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    He was indeed the Sixth and final Patriarch. Lineage is important in such matters of course; implicit in him being the Sixth - the bowl and robe were passed to him by the Fifth, denoting direct mind to mind transmission of awakening. Hui-Neng also supposedly had an awakening upon hearing some of the Diamond Sutra.

    If he existed...and if he composed the poem...and if he delivered the Platform Sutra...:)
     

Share This Page