misrepresentation of buddhist heart awakening in last video, what is love 2

[remember]

after some reflection about the entrence story of the last video, i realized that it was a very bad example of buddhist teachings.

small reminder: it was about the spiritual teacher who takes in buddhists and then he refuses them afterwards because they didn`t want to take his teachings without second thought as they didn`t want to believe something like a heartopening could happen.

showing buddhist teachings in the wrong light. for everyone who tries to go into buddhist teachings know that the core of buddhist teachings passed down from siddharta gautama himself is the heart sutra of "emptyness is form". someone who had a heart opening or awakening to the heart should understand its meaning if not they don`t know about heart awakeneing in debth. might be that buddhists themselfs are preoccupied about it like christians can be of the bible, but all in all the storry gives off the image buddhism was all about the mind and detachment. it is not, loving compassion as teached in buddhist scripture as far as i know is not about detachment of love it is about the maximization of love - how should that be without a heart opening?

The following is not a buddhist teaching, it is just an interpretation of my own experiences about the meaning of heart - i got an heart opening through understanding the heart sutra to a certain point:

from my heart to your heart i give pains and pleasures

from your heart to my heart you give the same

my heart recives from your heart

your heart recives from mine

be aware of the distinction of the intent, the distinction of the perception and the distinction of form and emptyness,

what the heart is empty of it needs to be filled: if the heart is filled with karma it will release karma. if the heart is filled with truth it will release truth. if the heart is filled with self it will release self. if the heart is filled with ego it will release ego. if the heart is filled with dharma it will release dharma. if the heart is filled with soul it will release soul. if the heart is clingy it will cling. if the heart is filled with raw destructive power it will destroy. if the heart cares it wil care. if the heart is filled with responsibility it will release responsibility. if the heart is filled with darkness it will release darkness. if the heart is filled with denial it will release denial.

 

the heart is a projector like the mind is, even though active through transcending suffering and karma the heart might be open wide, but what is vastness if it only includes the self?

 

i guess what buddhism teaches is not that the heart cannot be opened but it also teaches that the heart must rise above itself to let go of the cycle of karma konflikt. who is served first? how much do i need to take until i speak up? do i speak for myself alone or do i speak for others? do i still need the reference to others or can i walk on my own? what is the heart if it doesn`t rise to the sky? what is the heart if it doesn`t want to touch the earth?

siddharta left his godlike birth status to first touch the earth, and then rise to the sky, not to rise to the sky directly.

Edited September 12, 2019 by remember

[Leo Gura]

There is no such thing as Buddhism. There is Buddhism as interpreted by a mind. Buddhism is often taught in dogmatic ways or misinterpreted by the unawakened mind.

There have been plenty of people on this forum (even some who claim to be awake) who deny the existential nature of Love.

Love is not merely a heart awakening. Love = Truth, and many people are denial about that because they simply have not become conscious enough to realize that facet of God.

Awakening goes much deeper than people realize. There is so much depth and so many facets of it that they are easy to miss. Many people fool themselves into thinking they have seen it all. And they refuse to listen when they are told they are missing some important facet.

It doesn't really matter what the scriptures say because most people don't read them, or read them yet misunderstand them, or read them but never have direct consciousness of what they point to. Scriptures tend to be dry and fall on deaf ears.

Dogmatic Buddhism is a common thing. There are a thousand times more Buddhists than awakened people. So all this is to be expected.

What I teach, and Buddhism, are not the same thing. There are important differences even though the general direction is similar.

[remember]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no such thing as Buddhism. There is Buddhism as interpreted by a mind. Buddhism is often taught in dogmatic ways or misinterpreted by the unawakened mind.

the mistake you are making here is that you say, that it is interpreted by a mind. wherease i say a mind is interpreted by a heart.

[Aakash]

@remember

20 hours ago, remember said:

what the heart is empty of it needs to be filled: if the heart is filled with karma it will release karma. if the heart is filled with truth it will release truth. if the heart is filled with self it will release self. if the heart is filled with ego it will release ego. if the heart is filled with dharma it will release dharma. if the heart is filled with soul it will release soul. if the heart is clingy it will cling. if the heart is filled with raw destructive power it will destroy. if the heart cares it wil care. if the heart is filled with responsibility it will release responsibility. if the heart is filled with darkness it will release darkness. if the heart is filled with denial it will release denial.

 are you saying that heart = emptiness? 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Aakash

[remember]

4 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@remember

 are you saying that heart = emptiness? 

yes, and emptyness = form

[Aakash]

and what about formless? 

[remember]

the mind is the formless untill it takes form.

you could also say conciousness is the formless untill it takes form.

the heart can be formed much to easy to be formlessness.

Edited September 13, 2019 by remember

[Aakash]

@remember

9 minutes ago, remember said:

the heart can be formed much to easy to be formlessness.

and you have found the heart, without taking the path?

 

 

[remember]

2 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@remember

and you have found the heart, without taking the path?

 

 

there are so many more body parts

[How to be wise]

53 minutes ago, remember said:

the mistake you are making here is that you say, that it is interpreted by a mind. wherease i say a mind is interpreted by a heart.

The heart was created by the mind. Realise that.

[remember]

5 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

The heart was created by the mind. Realise that.

no - the heart was created by love and interaction in my case. where does the mind actually begin or end, you could also say: where does the heart begin or end.

Edited September 13, 2019 by remember

[Aakash]

@remember i'm afraid i don't understand what you meant by this 

5 minutes ago, remember said:

there are so many more body parts

are you talking about a physical heart or heart = emptiness?

[remember]

7 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@remember i'm afraid i don't understand what you meant by this 

are you talking about a physical heart or heart = emptiness?

do you think there is so much separation? buddha took the path through yoga and meditation he was a hindu not a buddhist. also the hands are roughly part of buddhism we have to look for other schools there, for example what is the emptiness of hands?

Edited September 13, 2019 by remember

[Aakash]

i think i'm following your words, not sure i like the way they are worded using body parts. 

But it builds an interesting picture in my mind  

the hands are apart of every tradition, it is a crossing point on the journey. 

8 minutes ago, remember said:

for example what is the emptyness of hands?

This is what i'm asking you, buddha did not actually take a path, he started off on a traditional path and then discovered emptiness himself, 

you don't see it like this ?

and to answer your question, the emptyness of the hands is the heart itself. 

there is seperation as long as there is a path, it can not be any other way, but no there isn't actually. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Aakash

[remember]

3 minutes ago, Aakash said:

i think i'm following your words, not sure i like the way they are worded using body parts. 

But it builds an interesting picture in my mind  

the hands are apart of every tradition, it is a crossing point on the journey. 

This is what i'm asking you, buddha did not actually take a path, he started off on a traditional path and then discovered emptiness himself, 

you don't see it like this ?

and to answer your question, the emptyness of the hands is the heart itself. 

there is seperation as long as there is a path, it can not be any other way, but no there isn't actually. 

a path is formed through the roads you take it´s a pathless path, choose the roads wisely and it will always lead you to what is the core of any teaching. but it`s about the emptiness of hands what formed all minds.

[Aakash]

@remember

29 minutes ago, remember said:

a path is formed through the roads you take it´s a pathless path, choose the roads wisely and it will always lead you to what is the core of any teaching

interesting way of phrasing it, i like it. 

in your opinion, why do you think people don't understand this issue about choosing paths wisely

29 minutes ago, remember said:

but it`s about the emptiness of hands what formed all minds.

Yes, however you arrive at that result. (i suspect what i have in mind is similar or the same as this) 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Aakash

[Truth Addict]

Minds are arguing about the heart.

The story of life...

[remember]

12 minutes ago, Aakash said:

in your opinion, why do you think people don't understand this issue about choosing paths wisely

mostly because their hands are too full or too empty probably. disconnection from themselfs and others, disconnection from the body, disconnection from the source, our "programms" are not running in a natural way, influence of maya/matrix since we are supposed to live in the "information age" there is too much toxic maya surrounding us everywhere. too much trash not enough food for the formless, the formless becomes trash.

[Aakash]

@remember  does this view also extend to those on the path themselves in your opinion ? 

you sound like your talking about people who don't start a spiritual journey, i'm talking about those on the spiritual journey themselves, choosing a path wisely. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Aakash

[remember]

3 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@remember  does this view also extend to those on the path themselves in your opinion ? 

it shouldn`t, it`s the moment where you can`t discern the trash from the bin anymore.

Edited September 13, 2019 by remember