I am so annoyed by stupid, superficial, arrogant and godless people on the Internet who pose as “compassionate” and “kind”, but who are in fact everything but. Honestly, I don’t think they would be able to recognise actual kindness and compassion if they saw it; in fact, I think they would condemn it as some kind of evil.
It’s actually very hard for me to define kindness. I can recognise it when I see it, but definitions are tricky, as they have to be accurate, specific and exclusive – basically, they need to say what something is, but not by being so broad they are useless. They need to exclude all the similar things something is not. In this case, a definition of compassion needs to exclude all the things that look like compassion, but are in fact not.
So, let me think about it. Compassion is samyama on a person. If I had to explain it to a non-yogi, I’d say samyama is to “grok” something or someone, to understand the inner nature of a thing or a person by means of being. Kindness is now easy to define; from a state of compassion, kindness is to give someone that which he needs to become more of self; to exceed limitations and attain realisation of one’s true nature (or, should I say, attain realisation of God’s true nature). Kindness, in essence, is what a bodisattva or a dakini does and you are awakened from an illusion and prodded forward on a path toward buddhahood.
Making “poor you, I’m so sorry for your predicament” statements is neither compassion nor kindness. It’s a manifestation of narcissism, nothing more. You just wish to be seen by others as a good and compassionate person, in a value-system where those are desirable qualities that elevate one’s social standing. People making such statements don’t really care if they actually helped someone; they just want to be seen as well-meaning and helpful, and in reality they never touch the actual person they are talking to, nor would they wish to. It’s like one of those formal greetings, where you say “how do you do” and you don’t really care, nor do you expect an answer.
I think it’s the problem with the Internet; it empowers poseurs and sociopaths to an extreme. It rewards people for making statements and gestures, that don’t necessarily have to be backed by anything real. Sure, things of this kind existed since forever, but an inherently superficial environment really encourages them.
What’s the difference between a compassionate person and a poseur? Well, a compassionate person sees someone with a problem, feels personally touched by it and drawn to act, and does something very real to help the person. For instance, see someone you used to know who fell on hard times, so you do very concrete things to help them – give them a place to stay, buy them clothes, find them work to do so they can earn money, basically help them end the downward spiral and reverse the negative trend of their life. You can’t really solve anyone’s problem, but you can buy them an opportunity to do it themselves. That’s what compassion and kindness are. What’s the fake thing that postures like the real thing in order to get social points? Mother Theresa. She didn’t solve anyone’s problem, nor did she even try to. She basically faked compassion in order to be thought of as a saint by other people, but she didn’t actually help the people she supposedly helped. Everything she did was for self-aggrandisement only, and it worked; she is generally recognised by people as an icon of compassion or whatever.
Internet is full of people like that; judgmental, self-centred ego-trippers, who always know the right thing to say to make them look good. How can you tell a fake from a real one? See how they deal with the “nazis”, the “tax collectors”, the people their ideology demonises. An excellent example is a black musician who heard about the KKK racists, and didn’t like the idea of being judged and rejected by someone for things that had absolutely nothing to do with him as a person, so he basically went there and talked to the KKK leaders, and eventually befriended them to the point where they renounced their former ideology, which they could no longer espouse in clear conscience. A poseur will call everybody a “nazi” because that’s what you do if you want to pose as someone who’s “a good one”, on the opposite side of a nazi, and would immediately reject a person for a mere suspicion of embracing an ideology that’s not the left of Chairman Mao, thus indicating that he’s so extremely “left”, that anything less than absolute extremism on the leftist spectrum is a “nazi” to him.
What is my recommendation here? Well, stop rewarding worthless people with positive social score just because they make extremist statements of virtue-signalling. Stop assuming someone means well and is a good person because he said all the “compassionate” words, such as congratulating people on apparently good things and telling them how sorry he is when something apparently bad happens. How about putting all such people in a spam filter and completely ignoring them, because that’s what they actually deserve. They are like those people Jesus talked about, who make everyone know when they do something pious or charitable, because what they are actually after is social approval and elevated rating. They don’t give to the poor because they care about the poor, they just want to be perceived as compassionate and generous. They don’t fast and uphold religious rules because they care about God; they do it so that people would perceive them as properly religious, and as such better than all those who aren’t. Interestingly, if you actually helped another person, you would know how wrong it would feel to even mention it, let alone brag about it to third parties. You did it because it felt like the right thing to do. You might have even gotten punished for it in some way. It’s a real thing that exists in the world of real things, and the reward for it is to feel reality, and participate in it. You do good things because to elevate others is to feel close to God, who is the great attractor on the coordinate axis of all greatness. Social posturing would make a real person feel diminished and soiled. On the other hand, it’s everything a fake person lives for, thinking that if they convince people, God will have no other option but to sign off on it as well, because if all the people think someone is a saint, how could God ever reject such a person, yes? The entire thing makes me want to puke, but the phenomenon is quite real, I assure you. Well, let me tell you this: God is not God because he has your vote of approval. In fact, you can all call him Satan or a Nazi for all He cares, and it would affect only you. God is God because he’s the fullness of sat-cit-ananda. God is God because He’s where all the greatness and beauty originates from, and to which all saints aspire. God doesn’t become God by giving His imprimatur to fake people who managed to deceive gullible people who lack discriminative faculties. That’s my opinion.
The Buddhist tradition holds within its treasury a formulation of experiential knowledge that reaches very, very far. It concerns an existential position (of being) described by Dzogchen, which practically also encompasses the scope of Mahamudra. However, there is a catch: due to the nature of what the mind itself is, it is simply not permitted to approach this externally through the intellect, as it will almost certainly create a direct opposition—namely, it will turn everything into a mere concept, thus absolutely unnoticeably burying the very essence of knowledge.
„The Buddhist tradition holds within its treasury a formulation of experiential knowledge that reaches very, very far.“
It is obvious that sentient beings can suffer and that this can guide them positively or negatively. It is also obvious that humans exist simultaneously, in parallel, in both material and mental reality, so chaos can be created (by someone or something) in both of these, and the human vehicle will suffer in some way. Ignorant beings will constantly fall into suffering on their own, or will cause other sentient beings to suffer due to ignorance, irresponsibility, or on purpose (by design).
Nirvana, Dzogchen and the great Longchenpa.
Regardless of realization, the problems of this reality here do not disappear; only the relationship to it changes to the extent (of perceiving the permeation and interaction of elements) that is functionally feasible (similar to when you can't ignore that you're aware you can hold your breath underwater, but you won't inhale because you're roughly bound by certain parameters of the vehicle).
This world is truly the result of someone's evil, someone's filth. To avoid messing things up with some kind of shitty permanent *contract* , I will intentionally formulate the statement more precisely: *it seems* as though this world from here is impossible to overcome and block.
If, on some other world, numerous beings existed in Nirvana and they wished to gain insight without personally exposing themselves to Samsara, so that certain parameters of some imagined artificial reality would affect real beings, they could cram all imagined parameters into a Jewel, limit them in time, or use common sense to see that the thing repeats itself without a favorable outcome and stop the experiment. When it comes to this world, everything indicates that it was directed by a violent tyrant, a psychopath, and a criminal.
Spiritual experience is important for one reason. If you've had it, then you have "material" for comparison. Comparison with what? With the recorded traces of someone else's experience that has been presented as "knowledge," realization, or teaching. In this specific case, it concerns Dzogchen, Longchenpa, and the book "Finding Rest in Illusion."
If you haven't had a spiritual experience, then you're in the zone of conceptualization, and you can only follow the material. The problem is that the material itself describes something, but it is not the very thing it describes. In other words, the concept and description of Nirvana or Rigpa are not Nirvana or Rigpa.
Someone, therefore, who has had the experience must have the gift to describe it as clearly and realistically as possible. When someone else who originally had no experience reads such a description, they won't attain the experience merely by reading it; instead, their mind will create a concept of that something. But concept and experience are not the same thing.
Rigpa or Nirvana cannot be an idea; they must be a living reality, far removed from any notion of being just an idea about something. It's simply impossible to invent something like that and sell it as a trick to someone else that aligns with their experience. Once again, it's impossible to sell Nirvana or Rigpa as just a concept.
Rigpa or Nirvana are something like an extraterrestrial entity to the usual psychoenergetics of an ordinary person. Or is it better to call it Darshan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=votJ4Qg5WtI
You can access the PDF of Finding Rest in Illusion by Longchenpa on the Internet Archive. It is available for download as part of the Trilogy of Rest, translated by the Padmakara Translation Group.
https://archive.org/details/LONGCHENPA-TRILOGY-OF-REST-VOL-3-Finding-Rest-In-Illusion-PADMAKARA
Video matches the book in the PDF from page 268 onwards.
It begins with words: „By what means then, it may be asked, can emptiness be realized?“
If a being (Buddha) exists within the parameters of a set that is beyond the experiential reach of an ordinary person, then, in order to convey to the ordinary person information about the existence of a reality that is still unknowable to them, it is necessary to create a "mathematical function" in the linguistic sphere that will map phenomena from the "unknowable set" onto the set of "knowable concepts" accessible to the person.
Let’s assume that, besides this world, there are other worlds. Let's say that if you are in a world without a material body, certain problems you have now would automatically disappear. It’s not hard to assume that other problems might arise in a dimension without a physical body, similar to the perceived illusion encountered by people experiencing near-death experiences phenomena (NDE). So, in a world without a physical body, you still perceive a certain reality that surrounds you, and you take a stance, your position. What will that position be this time, and what will it be based on?
Will "sarvam dukham" once again be positioned as reality?
It is evident that the NDE (Near Death Experience) world has its own "timeline"; people have been there and returned. Did everything become clear to them during that "time" away from this world? Of course not. Was it a moment of absolute understanding that they gained? Unfortunately, no. Worlds and the sentient beings within them clearly have their own continuum of time.
Is it possible that someone could be tasked with simply pouring experience into another being in some other world? In this one, it certainly isn’t like that; every being must, to a great extent, make an effort on their own. It’s true that one can rely on subtle help and certain guidance, but one must dig out what is real and what is illusory by themselves. This is similar to when someone needs to think for themselves about why people have indeed been to the Moon; it’s necessary to look at the matter from different perspectives and come to a conclusion on one’s own, using reason and the qualities that a decent person possesses.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/58896
Looking at this image of the Buddha, I see that he holds flowers from which, on one side, there is an unusually conceived sword, and on the other, a book. All of this points to the symbolism that the illusion of this world needs to be cut through with knowledge, or rather, realization based on personal experience. And then, above the Buddha in this world, there exists a being who holds no tools in their hands.
Practically, in all worlds, beings possess awareness and mind. From the mind, astral phenomena will always arise. If a being does not manage to unravel and understand the nature of mind, as in Dzogchen, this means continuous suffering.
This material world here is a big trap; this world is a creation of evil that waits, waits, waits, and tries to weaken you while you are still in ignorance and until it has damaged you enough that you can no longer help yourself. Additionally, when the prince of this world, Satan, has given you a material body, he has essentially taken you as a hostage.
One more thing, Buddhas always have two auras around their heads, which is a symbol of Rigpa. Deities and Saints have a single aura around their heads.
How could someone's entry into this material world, someone who is just newly born, with all memories completely erased, be able to comprehend the nature of the mind as presented in Dzogchen? It would be impossible because their entire base of relations has been erased; they have no concept of what cold or hot is, up or down, they do not comprehend the mind, do not comprehend awareness, are unaware of aging, illness, death, or NDE (Near-Death Experience) phenomena. All of this obviously needs to be established, the being must go through illusory situations firsthand, after which they must be able to relate things and understand the mechanisms. And then, under all the pressures that this material reality imprints on the impressions of the person, they must be able to reflect on everything, similarly to how one might take on the task of forming their own opinion on whether people have been to the Moon or not.
And I forgot the most important thing: one must survive all the attacks, traps, and setups through which Sanat Kumara wants to see you broken and dead. Including the fact that you have to come to terms with the filth he fills your environment with, which represents his domain of influence.
"Buddhist" yogis had to develop an entirely new terminology for the actual, phenomenal world they perceive thanks to their skills. This primarily serves them, as ordinary people generally do not experience spontaneous entry into the zones of phenomena into which a yogi has the ability to enter.
It now becomes clear why an ordinary person can only create a concept based on information about Rigpa or Nirvana. This is because the description of what a yogi perceives when they redirect certain winds in psycho-energetic channels remains just a description for the ordinary person. For the yogi, it is a specific state in the actual infrastructure that "in-live" enables a certain level of perception.
Does a yogi have the ability to perceive the level of the phenomenal world of ordinary people, characterized by phenomena determined by the state of the winds and channels? Yes. After all, they have been passing through this state their entire life.
Does an ordinary person have the ability to perceive the level of the phenomenal world that a yogi perceives when the winds have entered channels inaccessible to ordinary beings? No.
Here is the answer to why the *description* of Rigpa and Nirvana is just a description. To experience Rigpa, one must have a precise state of winds in specific channels.
Now you have the information about what Sanat Kumar wants to prevent, what he cuts off preemptively, and what he attacks.
I declare that this material world into which Sanat Kumar has lured us is a deception!
He has lured us deceitfully and is tormenting us without authority and without end. There is no possibility of escape from this world that Sanat Kumar would approve. Everything appears to be a closed system.
I declare before those who have insight into all things that this is an outrage, and that this world must be immediately stopped or certain beings should be allowed to take over part or all of the control.
It is time to change the contracts that were never legally obtained, while a facade of legality is maintained, directly supporting deception.
„On an island of gold,
You search in vain for earth and stones. „
This statement explains well why it is problematic what ordinary people bring back with them as the perception they had from the NDE side. To avoid confusion, the NDE world is not the "island of gold"; the Vajradhara state is.
Here are some good pieces of advice, precise descriptions, and, in practice, it's the brilliance of Buddhism at work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gePd_7aT7y8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFko9-v2jmk
https://www.lionsroar.com/mahamudra-vs-dzogchen/
' „On an island of gold,
You search in vain for earth and stones. „
This statement explains well why it is problematic what ordinary people bring back with them as the perception they had from the NDE side. To avoid confusion, the NDE world is not the "island of gold"; the Vajradhara state is. '
It is obvious that something bothered me about the perspectives of events that average people described as NDE experiences.
The matter is parallel in nature to the problem between what people perceive and how they function immersed in this world, and how Vajradhara cognizes as the being of Dharmakaya.
I just came across this video, and after the introductory sentence, I immediately thought, "Oh, another piece of nonsense," but the matter is very interesting, considering what a human being can follow as a trace and attempt to model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzeb3INsKDQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax1oXZZCobA
„I am so annoyed by stupid, superficial, arrogant and godless people on the Internet who pose as “compassionate” and “kind”, but who are in fact everything but. Honestly, I don’t think they would be able to recognise actual kindness and compassion if they saw it; in fact, I think they would condemn it as some kind of evil.“
Yesterday, I watched a few YouTube videos from which, in the end, a hero emerged in the sense of the aforementioned quote, Alex O'Connor.
As an introduction and to establish the relationships between the people and their personalyties , I will just mention a few YouTube titles:
"The Moment Jordan Peterson CONVERTED Russell Brand To Christianity";
"Did Jesus Actually Exit His Tomb – Jordan Peterson";
"But Did It Really Happen – Alex O'Connor."
And then I came across this acrobatic piece, which clears up all dilemmas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyMhZhwe3gc
Alex O'Connor is a good example of how a raw, rebellious "intellect" that revels in its own narcissism tries to assert itself, only to meet its downfall by the pure principle of causality. The guy is totally incompetent, lacking both intelligence and compassion as guiding principles. When everything is distilled, what remains is narcissism and hysteria.
YouTube: "God is a Delusion | Oxford Union Speech – Alex O'Connor."
The message of the next video is essentially of good quality and represents a decent understanding. It may lose focus at times and get a bit tangled, but it does observe the important points well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAnF4_v4qJQ
Peter Hitchens:
"Why is it that they so much want there not to be a God? Well, I'll tell you exactly why: it's precisely the same reason as I very much want there to be one."
It is evident that this man has managed to grasp a healthy intuition and build intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc