Reply to article "Tenzin Palmo about Lumír Láska"

The Sangha of the Heart of the Dharma hereby comments on the article entitled "Tenzin Palmo on Lumír Lásk", which was published on https://www.buddhaweb.cz/tenzin-palmo-o-lumiru-laskovi/ by Mr. Vít Kuntos on 14 May 2021. We have placed the backed up version, to which we have responded, here: www.srdce-dharmy.cz/tenzin-palmo-o-lumiru-laskovi/ We have backed up the article so that in the future the authors of the article, or other people who operate with the article, do not modify it. We suspect that it has been edited in the past. We believe, for example, that in the original version of the article, a pejorative reference was made to Prof. Anna Hogenová, PhD, CSc, who wrote a review of Lumír Lásky's book MAITREYA BUDDHA SUTRA, OR THE PRAGNESS... THE MOTHER OF THE INMORTALITY'S CHILDREN. You can read or listen to Prof. Hogenová's review at this link: www.srdce-dharmy.cz/maitreya-buddha-sutra. Similarly, we believe that the pejorative reference to "Allatra" has been removed.

We comment on this text as a whole, as the Sangha of the Heart of Dharma, a community of benevolent friends who support each other in mutual respect in realizing the state of absolute, unsurpassed enlightenment. The Sangha of the Heart of Dharma is one body with one heart, centered on the core teachings of all the Buddhas, and although we speak for ourselves, each in our own distinctive way, we speak with one voice in this text. Not because we want to defend or save ourselves, Lumir Love, or other beings or communities we hold in esteem from anyone, but simply to straighten out what has been distorted, to release the tension, to offer a deeper perspective.

We believe that our communication may at first glance appear to be nonsensical religio-political spin, and we therefore state that we did not originally intend to respond to this at all. However, at the urging of beings friendly to us who were disillusioned by the actions of the Honorable Tenzin Palmo, we have finally reconsidered. Mainly on the basis that they repeatedly urged us not to let our good name be damaged, because it is in the interest of all other beings to whom we can convey the Teachings of the Buddha.

The following text, which has been written gradually in response to the above-mentioned article, is a response to what the author or authors appear to us from the way the article is written and what we believe to be the real motivation behind the words and letters in the text.

Regarding the title of the article, specifically "Lumir Love is a self-proclaimed Buddha who created the Heart of the Dharma group."

We state:

That Lumir Love is indeed a self-proclaimed Buddha. We have already commented on this in our response to the article entitled "BEWARE OF SECTS", which was posted on https://www.buddhaweb.cz/pozor-na-sekty/ by Mr. Vitus Kuntos, on April 6, 2021. We have posted our backed up version to which we responded here: www.srdce-dharmy.cz/pozor-na-sekty/ The response to this article by the Heart of Dharma Sangha can then be found here: https://www.srdce-dharmy.cz/post/odpoved-na-clanek-pozor-na-sekty

Regarding the headline of the article, specifically "We drew attention to it in our article Beware of cults. The Venerable Tenzin Palmo, a nun at Kopan Monastery in Nepal, wrote the following post about the qualities of a true Buddha, and what the traditional teachings, which go back to the words of Buddha Shakyamuni himself, have to say about Lumir Love's manifestations."

We state:

That the qualities of a true Buddha are primarily indicated by the degree of his realized insight into the nature of reality. All else is mere imagination of what a Buddha should or could look like. To the label "traditional teaching" we add that this label, in turn, says only that the teaching was founded by someone at some point, and says nothing about any traditional teaching having more weight than any other teaching. Nor does it say anything about the fact that a doctrine's longer temporal existence is something that can be argued to be more authoritatively relevant and privileged than a tradition that has a shorter temporal existence from a secular perspective. To this we further add that such outcomes are not consistent with the Teaching of the Buddha (i.e., the Dharma) as such, which is devoid of the idea of "time" and thus of anything that might be karmically tied to such an idea. The exception then is naturally the distress-laden view, which therefore cannot be taken as relevant. We further draw attention to the fact that the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA himself states that "his teaching" will cease to exist. Accordingly, we state that every establishment of any tradition has a beginning and an end, and further in relation to this, we state that Lumir Love is the actual founder of the tradition of a non-institutionalized form of Direct Transmission of the Teachings of the Buddha called the Sangha Heart of Dharma. More on the title of the article, specifically "traditional teachings that go back to the words of Buddha Shakyamuni himself"

we state:

That we believe that this is a misleading statement because for approximately 500 years after the departure of the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA to Nirvana, His Teachings (i.e., the Dharma) were spread exclusively through oral transmission.

We believe that there is an intent on the part of the author or authors of the title of this article to support the "weight" of Ms. Marketa Bartos's message at the expense of Lumir Love and the Sangha Heart of Dharma in the sense that Ms. Marketa Bartos's message and claims are more relevant since Ms. Marketa Bartos comes from a tradition that "goes back to the words of Buddha Shakyamuni himself". Unless we are mistaken, this is a gross manipulation pursuing the intention of making the Teachings of the Buddha their own, private monopoly.

Further, we believe that such an action is not morally pure and as such is not in accordance with the Teachings of the Buddha, since everyone has their own exclusive and unquestionable right to their own subjective interpretation of the Teachings of the Buddha - not just those traditions that are intent on making the Teachings of the Buddha their own private monopoly. Likewise, the Teachings of the Buddha, in whatever form, are to be available for anyone to consider, and if any form suits someone, they have the right to follow, to follow, to profess, and if not, they also have the right not to follow. Everything else outside of this are superstructures following not the Teaching of the Buddha but suffering, which are therefore contrary to the Teaching of the Buddha.

Regarding the title of the article, specifically "Thank you very much Tenzin for the following detailed and valuable commentary and we hope it will help all those interested in authentic Buddhism"

we state:

That we believe that the various authors of all sorts of articles are merely "patting each other on the back" and reinforcing what they have mutually agreed upon as what is "authentic" in their view and what is not, while the fact that they have agreed upon it in this way is not really indicative of what is authentic and what is not. Authenticity is not determined by social agreement. Unless we are mistaken, then this negotiation is not authentic.

If we are not mistaken, then if someone uses the label "valuable" with the intention of harming someone for their own private, dishonest, and undignified reasons, then we conclude that they are not acting in accordance with the Buddha's Teachings (i.e., the Dharma). The Noble Buddha Shakyamuni himself, called GAUTAMA, calls anything that is not related to the transmission of the Dharma for the sake of all other beings as speech that is superfluous, because doing so is creating a distressing karmic connection. As for the Teaching of the Buddha (i.e., the Dharma) as such, this lacks any "value" concept such as "measure" or "depth." The use of such labels is permissible only under the exceptional circumstance where beings speak of a degree or depth of realized insight into the nature of reality that can only be derived from the degree of suffering that a being is willing to admit to himself.

Regarding Markéta Bartosová's statement, "If you have read Švandrlík's book The Black Barons, you may recall how a group of pétards display fake leave cards with signatures of non-existent officers and bet on who will dare to make the higher lot. The bank scooped Kefalin because he aimed highest. The name of JUDr. Alexei Chepichka, then Minister of Defence, was stuck on his document. He was betting that no one would dare to verify it. I remembered this episode in connection with a certain gentleman who calls himself Lumír Láska and who also aims high: he is not just any Rinpoche or Swami, of whom we are supposed to have a few in the Czech basin, but also Buddha Maitréya, as he claims. Do we dare to verify this? And do we even have a way? Can we recognize a Buddha if we do not consider ourselves enlightened beings?"

We state:

That we regard a nun working in a monastery in a position where she allows herself to be addressed as "Venerable" is viewed with uncertainty, since we believe that if she did not take Lumira Love so seriously, he would have left her completely cold and would not have needed to make such an effort to ridicule and humiliate him in any way - as it appears to us - with the intention of discrediting him. We believe that if Markéta Bartosová, instead of making judgments, were really interested in Lumír Láska and his teachings, she would dispel the inner turmoil which in effect appears as jealousy and envy. We understand that this cause gave rise to Markéta Bartošová's motives and a one-sided misunderstanding, but we disagree. We also believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová does not realize that in addition to the people who are agitating against Lumír Lásko and Sangha SRDCE DHARMY for their own private reasons, there are also real decent people who see Lumír Lásko and Sangha SRDCE DHARMY as an asset to their lives. These are the people who stand behind the legacy of Lumír Láska; people who may not have known Mrs. Markéta Bartošová until today; people who have not benefited from Mrs. Markéta Bartošová in any way until today; people who, with their own experience with Lumír Láska, are now following Mrs. Markéta Bartošová with disinterest.

We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová's speech is related to her own karmic burden and unprocessed pain, i.e. trauma. Such a being, at the moment when he finds himself in a situation that reminds him of the threat he experienced in the past, cannot control himself and cannot repeat the manifestation of his uncleaned karmic trace in the manner of "receiving the pain" or, on the contrary, "passing it on". Therefore, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is hurt by the presence of Lumír Lásky and Sangha Heart of Dharma for reasons that are related to her own subjective unprocessed pain. We believe that a being who has not yet dealt with his karmic burden is then naturally morally weak from the spiritual point of view, because he cannot control himself in his own subjective perception of danger, as a result of which he reacts mechanically to the stimuli of the karmic imprint, i.e., by "accepting pain" from a being whom such a being considers "more powerful" - or, on the contrary, by "passing it on" to a being whom such a being considers "weaker" or whom, as a "weaker" being, he wishes to subdue. We believe that such a subjective disposition is not really related to Lumir Love and the Sangha of the Heart of the Dharma.

We believe that such action under the influence of such karmic burden is a matter of being totally unconscious and instinctive, and in fact, therefore, not even directed against anyone in particular and therefore not even personal in any way - that is, for one who is willing to develop compassion and understanding for the pain of beings. But for one who is not willing to do so, such an action is personal.

We believe that the alleged pupil of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová approached Lumír Láska with a question, and because he did not like the answer, he began to act aggressively in the sense of "if you do not answer Lumír the way I like it, then you are not behaving like a real teacher". It is believed that the alleged pupil of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová turned to her in order for Mrs. Markéta Bartošová to "save" him from Lumír Láska. We believe that without first contacting Lumír Láska and verifying the situation with him herself, Mrs. Markéta Bartošová understood this as her own state of threat - in the sense that Lumír Láska was arbitrarily endangering her spiritual family. We further believe that Markéta Bartos herself is frustrated with her desire to have a spiritual family and disciples who will follow her. A simple indicator of this is the fact that she saves her followers from "false teaching" and does not allow them to deepen the quality of discernment they need to develop for their own moral purification.

It seems that Mrs. Markéta Bartos has not yet had her karmic burden cleansed and processed, and has therefore apparently acted under the weight of the above karmic burden in a "the best defense is offense" style. This means instinctively, i.e. according to the karmic connection to which she herself is probably subject, i.e. in the manner of "ridicule, discredit and humiliate". Furthermore, we believe that in fact Markéta Bartosová puts herself in the role of an authority figure who, through her unprocessed frustration, causes the manipulation of the subjective experience of every being in her presence.

We note that we do not know what kind of relationship Markéta Bartošová has with her pupils and whether they are allowed to study elsewhere than with her. We believe that if Mrs. Markéta has an agreement with her pupils that they are not allowed to do so, she should clarify this with them so that such situations in the form of similar misunderstandings do not occur anymore and so that she does not have to face the idea of being threatened by Lumír Lásky and Sangha SRDCE DHARMY, who have nothing to do with all this. We know from our own experience that a huge spiritual obstacle for teachers is the desire to teach and to have students. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is subject to this spiritual obstacle (which is really an unprocessed desire for family) and if this is the case, it is perfectly natural for such a teacher to be aggressive against anyone who interferes with this idea of his. This suffering, then, is entirely subjective and not really related to any other teachers who are not subject to such suffering.

We add that, if nothing else, every teacher should know Socrates' "method of the three sieves" and adopt it.

We think it unworthy of a nun working in a monastery in a position where she allows herself to be addressed as "Venerable" to stoop to choosing such unfortunate ways. We believe that rather than imparting spiritual lessons to her disciple in order to alleviate his suffering, Sr. Margaret Bartos encouraged him in his suffering by her own example (which, of course, would not have been possible had she not been subject to suffering herself). Fortunately for us and for Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, there is an answer and a solution to exactly this suffering in the form of the Sutra that Lumír Láska has written for us (MAITREYA BUDDHA SUTRA OR THE HOLIDAY... MOTHER OF THE INFINITY GIFTERS - www.heart-dharma. com/maitreya-buddha-sutra), and which is referred to as the "bible of peace" - precisely because Lumír Láska discusses duality in detail in it and explains clearly that anyone who is subject to a dual worldview is subject to his or her own inner conflict, which he or she projects onto others. Fortunately for all beings without distinction, Lumír Láska, through his immeasurable compassion, illuminates how to break out of the dual worldview and why such a being who is subject to this worldview faces an inner conflict (i.e., a tendency toward competition or war) through which it then manifests externally.

In addition to the above, we further state that we know from our own sources that Ms. Markéta Bartosová has been a Buddhist since 2009 (i.e. 12 years) and has received, among other things, monastic vows from the Dalai Lama. Because we believe that Ms. Markéta Bartošová has placed herself in a position of spiritual authority with the privilege of making statements about which spiritual group she believes is relevant and which is not, we note that there are many different stories about the Dalai Lama and who he is and who he is not, or who he might be, and whether he is who he is voluntarily or involuntarily. Neither Lumir Love nor the Sangha Heart of the Dharma have any comment on this, nor do they comment in any way. Nor do we mention it here to denigrate Mrs. Markéta Bartosová or the Dalai Lama. In this context, we are mentioning it solely to point out the fact that Mrs Markéta Bartošová herself is in a position in which she herself should best understand what it is like when someone starts spreading all sorts of stories and legends without actually first asking what the person about whom the stories and legends are being spread has to say about it. So if in the future Mrs. Markéta Bartošová encounters something like this, she will already know that exactly what she herself is doing to others is happening to her.

In view of the above, we also believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová (or the traditions that she represents) is definitely not in a globally relevant position of a single authority who speaks for and on behalf of the entire Buddhist community - in the sense of "what is or is not worthy of emulation".

To add to the above, we believe that Ms. Markéta Bartosová has also attacked Lumír Láska and the Sangha HEART of the Dharma because Lumír Láska dared to comment on the Dalai Lama on March 25, 2021 in connection with cxvxd-19 (found here: https://www.srdce-dharmy.cz/post/dalai-lama-zaslouzeny-odpocinek-duchovniho-vudce).

We also believe that Ms. Markéta Bartosová is questioning not only Lumír Láska, but also other beings who have appeared in the Czech basin, for example, in the role of rinpoche or swami. To this we add that we ourselves do not pretend to interfere in any way with the intentions of any beings of good will who, on the basis of wishing happiness to all beings, have decided to work for the spiritual upliftment of beings in the interest of the whole.

Here we would like to remember that we are happy to cooperate with such beings. So, if you are one of them, or if you yourself are working with them and are interested in working with us, please contact us at www.srdce-dharmy.cz/kontakt, and we will be happy to introduce you to our vision of Mutual Respect. In addition to the above, we would like to inform you that we have not seen any attacks from any Rinpoche or Swami in the Czech basin.

Specifically, with regard to Markéta Bartošová's statement "in connection with a certain gentleman who calls himself Lumír Láska".

we state:

That Lumír Láska is the official bearer of the name Lumír and the surname Láska. We believe that it is Mrs Markéta Bartosová who allows herself to be called "Honourable Tenzin Palmo" and we do not assume that she is the official bearer of that name. However, regardless of whether or not she has that name on an official document, we certainly have no objection to her being addressed as such. We only believe that speaking from the place of someone who allows herself to be called "Honorable Tenzin Palmo" about Lumir Love having renamed himself in this way, as some kind of "discovery" (which in fact is no discovery), is therefore again just an attempt to "ridicule and humiliate", and acts as a manifestation of superiority lacking a sense of self-reflection, which, we believe, is evident in beings subject to the inferiority syndrome, which is again related to the karmic burden mentioned above, i.e. the subjective suffering of such a being subject to it.

Specifically to Markéta Bartos' statement "Can we recognize a buddha if we do not consider ourselves enlightened beings?" we state that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is enlightened in our eyes and that she is only unaware of it. We also believe that it suits Ms Markéta Bartošová to do so in order to avoid having to take responsibility for her actions, which, we believe, does not absolve her of responsibility.

With regard to the story from the film Black Barons mentioned by Ms Markéta Bartošová in connection with Lumír Láska and, we believe, also with the Sangha of the Heart of the Dharma, we would like to state that Ms Markéta Bartošová gives us the impression of superiority - in the sense of, that "only she and her traditions are the privileged ones" not only in that they determine who can be called what and how according to them, but also in that they are the ones who expose the "truly valid abandoners". We believe that anyone who doesn't understand that Ms. Markéta Bartošová is privileged in this sense is laughing at Ms. Markéta Bartošová - as someone who hasn't yet understood this. We can't help making the analogy in which a person communicates with Christ directly and some tradition exacts indulgences or permission from him, which again is in direct contradiction to the mediation of any spiritual teaching in a non-institutionalized way. In addition to this, we further state that both Lumir Love and we, the members of the Heart of Dharma Sangha, enjoy sharing with all beings who already communicate directly with the ascended masters. And both Lumir Love and the Heart of Darma Sangha wish this for all beings without distinction simply because we are wishing beings. We cannot imagine that Lumir Love or anyone from the Heart of Dharma Sangha - instead of sharing their knowledge in an ordinary way - would put themselves at the head of an organization that would issue spiritual permissions. The fact that someone may perceive us that way may be related to the perception of oneself, so it's not really related to Lumira Love or the Heart of Harmony Sangha.

Specifically, Markéta Bartosová's statement "Lumír Láska, who also aims high: he is said to be not just any rinpoche or swami, of which we are also supposed to have a few in the Czech basin, but straight Buddha Maitreya"

we state:

That especially "not just any one" gives us the impression that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová herself is heading (according to her own conception) somewhere high up in the hierarchical spiritual ladder, and therefore she is quite uncomfortable with the presence of Lumír Lásky - Buddha Maitreya. Neither Lumir Love nor anyone from the Heart of Dharma Sangha thinks like this. We regard every being as our equal and naturally assume in them, as in ourselves, their full spiritual potential. In view of the karmic burden mentioned above (to which we believe Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is subject), we then see the whole thing as the manifestation of an angry being who is angry that the world is not working according to her, according to the "Venerable Tenzin Palmo" or according to the tradition she herself has freely chosen to profess; a tradition in which she has already "achieved something"; a tradition in which she has already received "some distinction". We believe that this is a military rather than a spiritual setting. Fortunately for us, but also for Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, there is an answer and a solution to exactly these sufferings in the form of the Sutra that Lumír Láska has written for us - MAITREYA BUDDHA SUTRA, or THE MOTHER OF THE INMORTALITY'S HEIRS (www. heart-dharma.cz/maitreya-buddha-sutra), where the author clearly and lucidly explains that such a being, who is subject to the tendency to inner conflict, quite naturally is subject to the tendency to manifest this inner setting also externally.

Furthermore, the speech of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová impresses us in such a way that she herself has a special liking for "supervision over the Czech basin", from the place of her position and the association or associations she represents, which we again consider as asserting a dominant position in the field of spiritual realization, which is actually considered in the spiritual world as a manifestation of immaturity.

Regarding Markéta Bartos' statement "Dare we check whether Lumír Láska is the Buddha Maitreya? And do we even know how? Can we recognize a Buddha if we do not consider ourselves enlightened beings?"

We state:

That Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is already a fully realized Buddha in the eyes of Lumír Láska, when the fact that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová has not yet recognized herself has nothing to do with Lumír Láska. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová will only appreciate the fact that Lumír Láska sees her as already perfect in the future. Simply because we speak from our own experience.

Furthermore, the formulation "we dare" gives us the impression of an attempt to create a sensation in the sense of "we dare to fight", which is a rather tabloid formulation. But why would anyone dare to do such a thing? Isn't it once again Ms Markéta Bartošová who feels threatened and therefore thinks she needs to "dare" something and on that basis calls on others to fight back? Why can't someone just check it out, ordinarily, through their own experience, simply because they want to check it out, without this combat deployment?

From our point of view, we also do not understand (with regard to who Mrs. Markéta Bartosová claims to be on the spiritual plane) why she does not simply state in connection with Lumír Láska that in the intermediate state of Bardo everything - in the sense of who Lumír Láska really is or is not - becomes clear. We think that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová should know how it works, when this plane of knowledge (if they are not already aware of it) will be reached by everyone, and therefore there is no reason for anxiety or concern. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is anxious, and it is for this reason that it seems to us that she is looking into the above-mentioned topic with prejudice, based on her own ignorance.

Considering the effect that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová's speech has on us, we believe that a being who has not developed the qualities of virtue will not recognize the Buddha anyway, even if he bumps into him head-on - regardless of whether or not such a being follows any spiritual authorities or spiritual traditions; regardless of what such a being has or has not ever learned and what he operates with as something he tries to sell on the tabloid market as something "argumentatively real". We believe that such a being acts negatively especially on itself. We note that it is Buddha Maitreya himself who chooses whom to be compassionate towards and under what circumstances.

We further believe that Ms. Markéta Bartosová is indirectly expressing herself in the sense that "the Buddha can be recognized by her instructions" - which is not true, because again, only the Buddha recognizes the Buddha. To this we further state that if it were true that "the Buddha can be recognized according to the instructions of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová, everyone would have followed them long ago, and there would not even be a reason to write what we are writing now in response to the suffering to which we believe Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is subject, because there would be no reason to do so. In view of the above, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is the embodiment of doubt - in the sense that on the one hand "she is guaranteed to recognize the Buddha", on the other hand "she does not consider herself to be an enlightened being", which in fact we consider to be a public expression of self-doubt on the part of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová.

Regarding the statement of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová, "The texts state that each supreme body of emanations is characterized by the so-called 12 deeds. Like the Buddha Shakyamuni, Maitreya is born into a noble family, receives an excellent education, but renounces the world, becomes a monk, becomes an ascetic for six years, and attains enlightenment under the bodhi tree."

we state:

That we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová relies on various traditional texts and especially on blind faith in them, which, however, is taken out of context. Because faith alone, without the willingness to truly understand the whole context, hinders the realization of the experience of insight into All Knowledge - precisely because those who "only believe" rigidly hold on to faith as a means to be put aside at a certain stage of spiritual development. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová has not yet attained this level of spiritual development - and we are not saying that she is therefore inadequate or bad, nor are we going to be aggressive, aggressive, condescending, superior or dominant towards her because she has not yet attained something. On the contrary, we lovingly recall that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is already quite perfect in the eyes of Lumír Lásky - Buddha Maitreya, and in our eyes. We furthermore express our understanding of the reaction of Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, who has "revealed" herself with her speech, and who carries the potential of self-cleansing for every being who decides with concern to be honest with himself and to put himself and his vulnerability before his subjective interests.

Further, then, with respect for the suffering of every single being, we note that both the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni, called GAUTAMA, and the Buddha Maitreya, agree that those who are subject to the degree of faith as their limitation will not attain the knowledge of the Buddha and will not realize Nirvana - specifically, until they have mentally transcended the degree of faith.

Consequently, with respect for the suffering of every single being, we state that we have our own experience that anyone who takes the Teachings of the Buddha dogmatically as beliefs and then passes these dogmas off as truths which, "unless they happen to be exactly as someone wrote them," tend to grasp them - i.e. "grasping" something as psychologically or physically real, which is a cause of suffering for beings, the consequences of which manifest themselves in the form of a tendency to act aggressively, aggressively, condescendingly, superiorly, or dominantly, in the sense that these grasped arguments are seen as weapons suitable for conflict. Which is the suffering of such beings who are subject to the subjective notion of ambivalence and separateness.

In view of the above, we further state that the Buddha Teaching was propagated for the first 500 years or so after the departure of the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA to Nirvana only through oral tradition, i.e., from ear to ear. Therefore, we believe that the fact that those texts which have been written over the millennia, to which subjective interpretations have been added and subtracted - without being written by the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA himself - and which predict that something will happen in a particular way, does not yet indicate that it will actually happen. There are many traditions, and not only Buddhist traditions, that interpret the words of the prophets in their own way, according to how it suits this or that tradition. Which is really an activity that falls into the "stage of belief" level, which is no less important than all other stages of development, unless it is misused to wage competition or warfare.

We point out that Lumir Love speaks not only to the world of the "dead" but also to the Immortal Masters directly, and has initiated other Masters around him into this practice. In the light of these spiritual experiences, it is clear that neither Lumír Láska nor the other already Awakened Masters can take seriously someone who does not have such experiences; someone who relies on a dialectic based on a degree of faith which he uses against himself and thus naturally against all other beings.

As for Markéta Bartos' statement, "I would like to emphasize in particular the aspect of monasticism, because its role is extraordinary."

We state:

That we cannot but agree with Mrs. Markéta Bartošová. We believe, however, that to be a "monk" it is not enough that a man, for his own private reasons, retreats from the outside world into a monastery of some tradition, so that he can then, under the weight of his unprocessed pains, whenever he loses control, flaunt his monastic initiation as some special distinction, and "wipe them about the mouth" of anyone who, according to him, has no right to speak. Instances of such retreats into monasteries for the purpose of renouncing the world in the true sense of the word we do not even consider credible - nor does the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA. There are many monks who do not have any ordination approved or recognized by Mrs. Markéta Bartos, but they act with honesty, dignity, truth and love, and have far-reaching merits that are beyond the ordinary understanding of such beings who have no such merits. We believe that such open aggressive and hateful language, elevating oneself above others, ridiculing and humiliating them, is not dignified by a nun working in a monastery in a position where she allows herself to be addressed as "Venerable Tenzin Palmo". We further note that we do not find even a hint of "loving kindness" in the speeches of Mrs. Markéta Bartos. To then cite herself as an example in this context (using the name of the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA) we consider to be a misuse of his name for marketing purposes. He certainly does not approve of such action, which he will also naturally show himself at the appropriate time. Then we add that the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni, called GAUTAMA, explicitly opposes caste and emphasizes that enlightenment is available to anyone who is sincerely interested in the Teachings of the Buddha, regardless of who he is or what class caste he belongs to. The noble Buddha Shakyamuni, called GAUTAMA, like the Buddha Maitreya, was and is lovingly devoted to anyone in whom he recognizes honesty and sincerity. So, as far as the "way of monasticism" professed by Mrs. Markéta Bartos is concerned, we have nothing against it, but we note that it is not the only relevant and privileged direction. We consider it to be the private wish of Mrs Markéta Bartošová rather than a reality which, in our opinion, eludes her. We have nothing against such private wishes either, we respect them too, we do not question any tradition and if we comment on anything, we react only to describe the various hardships that beings at different levels of their spiritual development go through. We believe that it is Mrs. Markéta Bartošová who has publicly addressed us with negative motivation of her own accord, in a manner unworthy of her. However, since this has happened, we have no choice but to kindly address her, for her sake and for the sake of all other beings, and to illuminate that we are the ones who are responding truthfully and exposing her suffering - in the sense that it is Mrs. Markéta Bartosová who has something against the SANZA HEART OF DARKNESS. It is not that the Heart of Dharma Sangha has anything against her or against her tradition.

Regarding Mrs. Markéta Bartos' statement, "Other statements also show that the Sangha in the true sense of the word, that is, those who have taken monastic vows in an unbroken lineage going back to Buddha Shakyamuni, are the main maintainers of his teachings."

We add:

That the Sangha is only as precious as its members are honest, sincere, desirous and truthful - no more, no less. We likewise state that we believe that Mrs. Marketa Bartos's ideas of what the Sangha is, the monastic vows and the unbroken lineage going back to Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA, are her subjective ideas, which we do not deny. This is not to say that there is not a Sangha which has its own monastic vows and its own direct and unbroken lineage reaching directly to the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA, who is thus the maintainer of His Teachings.

In addition to this, we further state that the incarnation of the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA was predestined by the Noble Buddha Dīpankara without the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA following any previous tradition of the local (in the sense of established on Earth at that time) type, in the manner referred to by Mrs. Markéta Bartosová.

As to Markéta Bartosová's statement, "Every other supreme emanation will thus manifest itself in the aspect of a monk and will also confer monastic ordination as Buddha Shakyamuni did." We state that not only Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is a witness of what the supreme emanation Buddha Maitreya is engaged in.

Regarding Markéta Bartosová's statement "That none of this corresponds in any way with Mr. Love? Because he is not just any Buddha, he is the Buddha Himself. As he says, "Samjaksam Buddha means 'he was already enlightened in a previous birth, therefore in this birth he has awakened without the support and assistance of a physical master, he has awakened in a transcendent way, with the support and assistance of the immaterial masters with whom he is in harmony'. But the Sanskrit word samyak means "perfectly" and sam is "fully," so absolutely every buddha is a Samyaksaṃbuddha (सम्यक्संबुद्ध), perfectly and fully enlightened. One who is once enlightened remains enlightened, so he doesn't need to awaken any further, and besides, of course, he is also not subject to the cycle of birth and death, so there is no question of his taking further births."

We state:

That Mrs. Markéta Bartosová compares (in the same way as she gathered information about Lumír Lásko - that is, without first verifying it with him) excerpts from various texts written by whom ever, which often, as we see in other spiritual traditions, do not coincide. Mrs. Markéta Bartošová then dogmatically compares the information given in these texts - based on her belief in them - with the ideas she has made about Lumír Lásko.

We perceive Ms Markéta Bartošová's statement "he is not just any Buddha" as an attempt to ridicule and humiliate Lumír Láska. We believe that this is unworthy of a nun who works in a monastery and in a position where she allows herself to be addressed as "Venerable". We believe that if Ms. Markéta Bartos cannot forgive herself for such actions, she is in fact expressing her own lack of confidence in what she is saying.

Further, Ms. Markéta Bartošová first quotes Lumír Láska and then adds "but the Sanskrit word samyak means "perfectly" and sam is "fully". We believe that Ms. Markéta Bartošová erroneously points to this as a fact that is mutually exclusive. About Markéta Bartosová's statement "One who is once enlightened remains enlightened, so he does not need to awaken any more, and besides, he is not subject to the cycle of birth and death, so there is no question of his further births."

We state:

That is not true. The Exalted Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA was himself already Enlightened in his previous births, but he chose this birth as the Final Consummation of his Perfection, i.e., Samyaksam. I believe that Mrs. Marketa Bartos misses the fact that there are many levels of Awakening and Enlightenment, just as there are many orders in the world of fauna and flora. In this respect, the term "enlightenment" is overrated. As far as Buddhas are concerned, then, for example, there is the level of the Once-Returner, that is, the one who returns to this world once more, the Buddha Himself is the Non-Returner, etc. That is, the Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA was a Once-returner in his previous birth. Mrs. Markéta Bartos' statement "... so absolutely every Buddha is a Samyaksaṃbuddha (सम्यक्संबुद्ध), perfectly and fully enlightened. One who is once enlightened remains enlightened, so he does not need to awaken any further, and besides, of course, he is also not subject to the cycle of birth and death, so that one cannot speak of his further births." is therefore not true.

Further, then, in the absolute sense and meaning, every single moment can be considered a rebirth. We believe that if Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, in the sense of assuming her own responsibility, understood what this means in the above sense, it would not be possible for her to write "He who is once enlightened remains enlightened, so that he does not need to awaken any more, and besides, of course, he is not subject to the cycle of birth and death, so that one cannot speak of his further births."

Regarding Markéta Bartosová's statement, "Mr. Love is said to have become first a Buddha and then a Maitreya. How did this happen?"

and other things said to Mrs. Markéta Bartošová and related to this, we state:

That we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová simply gathered such information that fits into her story, which she worked hard for this purpose. We believe that for her own private reasons, she did not seek any other information. We note, however, that such information can be procured by anyone who sees some purpose in such an activity.

We believe that a person who is sure of himself, his tradition and all that he says has no need for such action which is in the pursuit of defending himself. Similarly, we believe that it is extremely undignified for Ms. Markéta Bartošová to use so-called testimony in connection with Lumír Láska and not to disclose specific names, while Ms. Markéta Bartošová does not hesitate to mention Lumír Láska's name. We consider it extremely incorrect not only to engage in such activities as a spiritual authority, but also to operate with information in this way. Ancient spiritual wisdom says: "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to them." We do not know how Ms Marketa Bartošová would feel if someone started to make public and one-sided comments about her without having given her an offer to comment on the matter beforehand, moreover, on the grounds that the information was obtained from someone whose name cannot even be made public. We believe that this is an act of domination and instinct. We believe that Ms Markéta Bartosová is not in complete control of her private anger and does not even realise how far she is going with this behaviour.

As to Markéta Bartošová's statement: 'So an "offer of promotion", not a historical figure? And who decides in the end on the awarding of this "rank"?" we would like to state that Lumír Láska, who sees in every single being the full potential of the Buddha, does not think in this way. When Lumír Láska, who has realized enlightenment, says "I have realized enlightenment," he does not mean that perhaps someone is worse than he is, nor that someone is better than he is. In fact, what Lumír Láska is saying is that what is possible for him is possible for every being. This is an offer of equality that is related to his level of spiritual realization, that is, equanimity. From the place of this spiritual level, therefore, it is not possible for Lumír Láska to demean himself or anyone else, or, on the contrary, to exalt himself. We know from our experience and witness daily that only as is natural to the immensity of his compassion, Lumír Láska only registers the particular qualities of beings and states whether they are to their benefit or, on the contrary, to their detriment, and whether these qualities are worthy of a spiritual being or not.

To this we further state that we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová lacks the ability of self-reflection - for the reason that she asks "And who will ultimately decide on the awarding of this "rank"? ", while her entire speech, we believe, gives the impression that she is perhaps the one who decides on spiritual ranks, without Lumír Láska himself addressing her and telling her whether her rank as a nun who allows herself to be called "Venerable" is justified or not. It is not only for this reason that we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is preoccupied - rather than with truly spiritual activities that would help her overcome her suffering - with secular activities that actually deepen her suffering. We also believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is subject to a collective karmic burden - in the sense that she faces her own non-acceptance of herself, and therefore believes that she herself is "not good enough". We believe that this her non-acceptance of herself, as a karmic balance, externally manifests itself in the form of aggression, which pursues the intention to catch other beings, according to how Mrs. Markéta Bartošová thinks of herself, on the fact that they are also "not good enough". We believe that this is a heavy karmic burden of inferiority, which manifests itself in a tendency to dominance, i.e. to superiority. It strikes us as if Mrs. Markéta Bartosová finds a special pleasure in these inclinations. We believe that this suffering was aptly dealt with by the director David Ondříček in the film One Hand Does Not Clap, specifically in Vladimír Dlouhy's 'I'll catch you' scene.

As for Markéta Bartosová's statement "Never mind that we do not agree with any historical sources, nor with the discourses of Buddha Shakyamuni, whose direct disciple Mr. Love also claims to be, let us try to mix in Christianity. Mr. L., while presenting themes such as the Four Noble Truths, the impermanence of phenomena, and emptiness, claims to be the actual brother of Jesus Christ, and to have Christ-like powers. But Christianity and Buddhism differ in one fundamental way: the Buddha is omniscient, but not omnipotent. So statements like "... from the being who entrusts himself to me I will remove the burden of karma and grant him my grace, which he cannot do without in the afterlife" and "just as he (Jesus Christ) closes the access to the grace of God and no one else opens it, so I open the access to the grace of God and no one else closes it... I remind you, and repeat to you, that I will repeatedly witness that I will repeatedly be asked for mercy, but to him who has not heard me in due time, and to him who has not recognized me, it will not be granted... to him it will not be granted" (abbreviated, omitting the overuse of capslock and the misuse of diacritics and punctuation) have nothing to do with Buddhism. Just recall Matrcet's famous line, "Buddhas do not wash away the karma of beings with their hands, nor do they transfer their understanding into the minds of others. They lead beings to freedom by showing them the nature of reality."

We state:

That about Mrs. Markéta Bartošová's statement "it does not matter that we disagree" we believe that this is again an attempt at ridicule and humiliation, i.e., in view of the suffering already mentioned - to which we believe Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is subject - it is again the formula "as I deal with myself, so I manifest myself to other beings." We believe that it would be dignified for a nun who allows herself to be addressed as "Venerable" to first propose the possibility of dialogue. We cannot imagine that Lumir Love or anyone from the Heart Dharma Sangha would treat Ms. Marketa Bartos in a similar manner. Further, then, in view of what has already been said, although Mrs. Markéta Bartosová has historical sources, this does not mean that they are guaranteed to be relevant. Furthermore, as far as the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA is concerned, Lumír Láska communicates directly with Him and other Masters, as well as other awakened beings from the Heart of Dharma Sangha. We respect that this may be unimaginable for Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, but we would be arrogant and unsympathetic if we lied to her that it is not possible even for her.

Regarding Markéta Bartošová's statement "let's try mixing in Christianity".

we state:

That we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is trying to ridicule and humiliate not only the person of Lumír Lásky, but also his private and sovereign right to religion. We believe that this can be considered extremely unacceptable behaviour from someone who considers herself a "Venerable Nun of the Monastery". We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartos will be even more surprised to learn how closely Buddhism and Christianity are related. Yes, Lumír Láska has declared that he is the own brother of Jesus Christ. Why would that be strange? According to the characteristics of the Twelve Acts, he naturally comes from a noble family. Further then, why could Lumir Love not be of both Buddhist and Christian religious beliefs? Especially since Lumir Love wishes happiness to all beings without distinction, associating in any spiritual tradition. This is especially so, considering that Lumir Love respects all beings with their religions. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová does not yet realize that Omniscience is directly related to Omnipotence - in the sense that in the presence of the Omniscient One all karmic impurities of beings are revealed, that have not processed them, just as it is now in the case of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová, without her consciously and voluntarily choosing to do so, with which this Omnipotence in the sense of the grace that she is now receiving is connected. In view of the above, we add that not in the worldly sense, but in the spiritual sense, Omnipotence is therefore related to the fact that he who has transcended his own karma is the master of his own destiny, and he who is the master of his own destiny is able to grant grace to beings who are not yet the masters of their own destiny. In view of the above, it is quite clear that such a being who has exceeded his karma can bless the suffering beings (i.e., those who have not yet exceeded their karma) and give such instructions which, if followed by such beings, will result in their being able to take responsibility for their own destiny.

In this respect, we are in agreement with Mrs. Markéta Bartosová in the sense that without the grace of the Master of the tradition, who grants grace to other beings in their own interest, other beings simply do not receive grace, and such beings therefore do not realize their Buddhahood. In this sense, it is the Buddha, as the "Almighty," who in fact literally "allows" beings to break out of the cycle of birth and death of samsara in his presence. A being who is not the Almighty simply cannot grant such a blessing to other beings.

Further, then, it must be borne in mind that we are never alone, and that immaterial beings in the form not only of Buddhas but also of deities of all kinds are constantly watching us and are therefore constant witnesses to all our actions and dealings. We state this mainly in order to make clear the permanence of this witness, in the sense that for such a being who, in the presence of a Buddha, has betrayed himself - for example, by taking the trouble to check whether or not he is a Buddha, or by being aggressive towards him - it is not guaranteed that he will ever meet a Buddha again.

We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, according to her spiritual level, interprets Omnipotence in the sense of "worldly power", while true Omnipotence is mainly about the psychological level - when the degree of that power is directly proportional to how honest one or another being is with himself. In this respect, the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni himself, called GAUTAMA, often speaks to us: "There is none more powerful than the Buddha." It is precisely to remind us, out of his immeasurable and kindly compassion, that the powerful is not the one who suffers from the tendency to control others, but the one who can control himself. Further, then, this means that the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni, called GAUTAMA, is saying directly: Omniscience = Omnipotence.

Therefore, we believe that the information from which Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is currently based reflects not only the spiritual level she is currently in, but also, we believe, that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is using this information in the karmic context she is currently in against herself and against other beings without really understanding it. Naturally, we also believe that for some beings who have already surpassed such a level, the information from this level of knowledge may no longer be sufficient or even misleading.

We believe that for Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, in the situation of suffering to which she is subject, it is simply unimaginable and therefore naturally unacceptable that Lumír Láska does not fall below her spiritual level, nor below the spiritual level of the beings who have been presented to her as her spiritual authorities, which we fully respect. However, in view of our own spiritual experiences, we suggest to Mrs. Margaret Bartos that she also respect that for us the most significant spiritual authority we have ever encountered in our subjectivities is Lumír Láska - Buddha Maitreya.

Specifically, to the statement of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová: "But Christianity and Buddhism differ in one fundamental way: the Buddha is omniscient, but not omnipotent." we state:

That it is not only Buddha Milarëpa who speaks of the "laws of God", of the "father", and that he himself recognizes what is in harmony with these laws and what is not, which clearly speaks of the union of "Christian Omnipotence", "Buddhist Omniscience" and Buddha Milarëpa as "son of God" - in the sense that he recognizes himself as an authority capable of discernment. And also in the sense that he clearly recognizes the spiritual qualities through which beings harm themselves, or conversely those through which beings benefit themselves. In addition to this, we further state that the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni himself, called GAUTAMA, speaks of the "Divine Eye of the Tathagata", that is, of the One who, among many other things (that which is beyond ordinary worldly understanding), for example, has transcended the Duality of "good and evil", where the very designation "Divine" is again closely related to Christianity - in the sense that the designation "divine" or "divine" is the nature in Buddhism, and also in the sense that like any Buddha, the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, which means, among other things, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Buddha (i.e. the Awakened One).

In this respect, we interpret Mrs. Markéta Bartošová's statement "let's try to mix in Christianity" in such a way that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová tries to refer to Lumír Láska and his own spiritual experiences as the dog and cat in Josef Čapek's story about how they made a cake - again in order to try to ridicule and humiliate him. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová does not realize that there are many beings independent of Lumír Láskó who, from the place of their own spiritual realization, believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová's spiritual level of knowledge is far from Lumír Láskó's level of knowledge, when from that level, in which there is present a tendency to inner conflict, which manifests itself in a tendency to outer conflict, in this competitive setting, she aims at Lumír Láska with the intention of ridiculing and humiliating him, as is quite natural for beings who have not yet realized the level of knowledge that Lumír Láska has already realized.

Therefore, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartos's idea of how Buddhism and Christianity differ in her opinion is related to the degree of her own ignorance. Yes, Lumír Láska does indeed have the power to bestow his grace on beings, and Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is just witnessing that she is receiving this grace, although the fact probably escapes her for the time being. See this text - I Love You, I Grant You Grace: www.srdce-dharmy.cz/miluji-te-udeluji-ti-milost, or here is a link to an hour-long video of the same title based on this text: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSf47DeNx3Q&t=13s

In this context, it seems appropriate to point out a possible reflection on whether what Lumír Láska shares is the invention of someone who writes and shares his stories in order to impress, impress, or perhaps fool someone... or is the truth about him much simpler and more straightforward - that is, that Lumír Láska simply sees into the heart of each person when he shares this vision with that person, in order for that person to have the opportunity to see the truth about themselves and how that person is hurting themselves. Yes, it is chilling to see how frightening it is that beings face the immeasurable compassion of Lumiere Love - the Buddha Maitreya, whom we have never encountered before and of whom we of the Heart of Dharma Sangha are honest and sincere witnesses.

Anyone who is truly independent, who looks with an unbiased eye, can see this.

Specifically, then, on Marketa Bartos's statement "misplaced diacritics and punctuation," we state that the holy being does not confine himself to serve the tongue, but uses the tongue to serve him, or through him to serve all beings without distinction.

Specifically, then, to Markéta Bartos' statement, "It is enough to recall Matrcet's famous verse: 'Buddhas do not wash away the karma of beings with their hands, nor do they transfer their understanding into the minds of others. They lead beings to freedom by showing them the nature of reality."

We state:

That this has already been done through the book MAITREYA BUDDHA SUTRA, or FREEDOM... THE MOTHER OF THE IMMORTALS (www.srdce-dharmy.cz/maitreya-buddha-sutra) - in a way that is understandable to the world today.

Regarding Markéta Bartos's statement "One might still think that the Lord, although not a Maitreya and not teaching pure Buddhadharma, has some spiritual qualities that might be beneficial to his followers" we state:

That we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová has written what she herself would have wished, and on the basis of this her private wish, conclusion and output, she thinks "the Lord is not Maitreya", regardless of the fact that there are other beings of other faiths and beliefs who may not agree with her. Lumír Láska does not cease to be Buddha Maitreya just because Mrs. Markéta Bartosová subjectively wishes it so. We also believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová undignifies others with her own conclusions and does so especially because she herself insists exclusively on the spiritual tradition she has chosen to follow and on the spiritual permissions that this tradition grants and issues. In addition to this, we note that both Lumir Love and the Heart of Dharma Sangha do not similarly declare or define themselves against any spiritual tradition, leaving each person free to pursue whatever he or she thinks is beneficial and beneficial to him or her - and equally free to decide otherwise at any time. To this we continue to state that we linger in this setting mainly because we ourselves are so free and dignified.

In view of the above, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartos has convinced herself that it is she who decides which traditions have spiritual legitimacy and which do not, which we see as a manifestation of religious intolerance because it is inherently against the freedom of spiritual belief. We also see it as a distressing attempt to grasp and shape reality in the sense of a tendency to build and assert dominance in the field of spiritual realization, which is far from the loving-kindness that is the essential prerequisite for the spiritual maturity of a being.

Further, then, we conclude that both the book MAITREYA BUDDHA SUSTRA or THE FREEDOM... MOTHER OF THE INFINITY GIFTERS and the booklet HEART OF DHARMA or A GUIDE TO SELF (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5R7wzNv_EA&t=153s, PDF version available here) are pure Buddhadharma and a spiritual message so precious and profound that it can only be recognized by a being who does not pursue interests other than those that are of real benefit to himself and to humanity. We believe that such interests can only and only be pursued by such a being who has developed such a degree of humility towards himself that he has understood in depth the First Noble Truth proclaimed by the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA, and has truly bowed before this truth in his heart, for his own sake and for the sake of all other beings. We believe that it is impossible for such beings who have not yet developed humility towards themselves in this sense to understand Lumira Love. In this sense, they are all the same, regardless of whether they are from among the laity or from among the representatives of spiritual traditions. We believe that such beings will go back and forth in the cycle of life and death of Samsara until they develop humility towards themselves. We believe that only when they have developed it will they understand what Lumir Love is really communicating to them - not before.

Likewise, Lumir Love's poetry collection PURE HEART (available, for example, at www.homeharmony.cz or www.kamennyvesmir.cz) is a Buddhadharma for beings who are developing their discernment. A recent review of this collection reads, "I can't write much, but I recently wanted to write a review of Pure Heart. After about two years I read it and it didn't happen, a few lines and I was crying and crying... it's love from another world."

We then go on to say that we have not yet encountered anyone in our reality who has been able to summarize the entirety of samsaric suffering into a mathematical equation and through it "calculate" that this suffering does not really exist. Lumír Láska has thus summarized the basic doctrine of All-Miracles and the Universe into an equation, which he called the Matrix of the Universal Law of Impermanence, so that everyone can truly understand it.

And this is how Lumír Láska, in this way, has laid it out for this particular world, in which the Teachings of the Buddha are forgotten - precisely because they are fundamentally misunderstood by laymen and clergy alike - in a way that is right on target.

Such abilities, which are the divine manifestation of the mediation of grace to the whole world, are not possessed by the ordinary man. Only one who has realized perfection can do that. This in itself is proof that Lumir Love has mentally transcended the limits of matter and is therefore a Buddha who can freely choose whether or not to be born. The degree of the level of this responsibility is quite naturally beyond the comprehension of beings who have not realized such a depth of knowledge. We would add that the Buddhadharma is in fact very simple in itself, and certainly not what Mrs. Markéta Bartošová wishes to make of it on the basis of her own subjective suffering, i.e. something inaccessible to unlearned people, as she is learned. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová does so because she cherishes her suffering, in order to distinguish herself from beings who are not learned as she is, to elevate herself above them, and thus to gain an importance that will determine who, according to her, will receive grace and who will not. We believe that this is the deep trauma of Mrs. Markéta Bartoš.

To the above we further state that the real Buddhadharma is an ordinary teaching transmitted in the simplest way, i.e. interpreted for the sake of all sentient beings in the karmic field, using whatever means of interpretation are currently available. The most eminent Teacher, then, is not the one who has more knowledge, but the one who is able to convey and interpret the Law of Impermanence, on which all the other Teachings of the Buddha depend, in an ordinary and simple way, i.e., independent of knowledge. Such a teacher, whether or not he possesses knowledge, is naturally not responsible for the reluctance of one who has not developed a basic humility towards himself in the sense of recognizing the First Noble Truth proclaimed by the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA. Such, then, is the degree of this lack of humility towards oneself, such is the degree of envy and jealousy that springs precisely from the lack of humility towards oneself, and such is the degree of the tendency to hatred that is employed and engaged in by one or another being who refuses to develop humility towards oneself. Such hatred of the being is then the cause of this self-hatred, which is in no way connected with anyone outside. It is the private subjective suffering of the one who refuses to take responsibility for his own and private subjective suffering. It is natural that a being subject to such an enormous burden should wish to hold other beings responsible for his suffering, especially since he refuses to take responsibility for his own suffering. This then is karma both private and collective.

Mrs. Markéta Bartos gives the impression that she is jealous of Lumír Láska, simply because his books are of real quality, are in demand, and have a real impact on the lives of ordinary people, from whom the Sangha HEART OF DARMA has received a great deal of positive feedback. It seems that Ms. Markéta Bartosová has not reached out to any such person, as he would not confirm her biased conclusions. We believe that a person who does not wish happiness to other beings may be frozen by such a fact, and conversely, a person who wishes happiness may in turn be pleased by the fact that people like each other and go out of their way to please each other.

If, therefore, we are correct in what we say and believe in this text, then we wish with all our hearts that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová will contact Lumír Láska and ask him how he managed to write such wonderful spiritual literature. As we know Lumír Láska, he will devote himself to it selflessly, as lovingly as he has always devoted himself to us. He constantly tells us that we should wish all beings indiscriminately well, and especially those things which we ourselves may even think we do not have, because if we do not, we ourselves cannot be happy, and as such we will seek our happiness in an unhappy way in situations unworthy of us, in which it is impossible to find it. This is karma that we cannot afford, so we wish happiness to all beings, for their own sake.

Regarding Margaret Bartos' statement, "The beginnings in his community called the Heart of Dharma do not look bad: "I love you... I really do... there is no fault... there is no guilt... there is no crime... that would deprive you of my love", although in another fiery post, where he calls for withdrawal from the EU and the restoration of Czechoslovakia, with Daniel Landa as president and Mr Volny, a well-known poverty merchant, Russia lover and opponent of veils, as his adviser, he speaks of "a collection of beings who rightly do not deserve the name and label of people". But what happens if one dares to think critically and express oneself in one of the dozen or so Facebook groups promoting Mr. L. and his books, T-shirts and mugs, and liking to share posts from pro-Russian disinformation sites and a kind of Ukrainian sect that outwardly presents a creative society but also proclaims that Putin will free the Slavs from American subjugation, one's own opinion or share a negative experience?"

we state:

That Lumir Love is not the owner of any community. The Sangha of the Heart of the Dharma is indeed inspired by Lumír Láska as the representative of the living Teaching of the Buddha in the form of Buddha Maitreya, but it is independent of Lumír Láska, whereby we state that it is certain, that if we did not meet Lumir Love in sincere efforts to realize the Knowledge of the Buddhas, we would direct such efforts to any other being who was close to him, which does not make Lumir Love in any way responsible for the Heart of Dharma Sangha, and vice versa. Specifically, we perceive Markéta Bartošová's statement "The beginnings in his community called Heart of Dharma do not look bad: " as a gross manipulation because we believe that Markéta Bartošová is skillfully and purposefully suggesting to the reader the opposite in the sense of "this community looks bad".

As for the Mantra of Pure Directness: 'I love you... I really do... there is no fault... there is no guilt... and there is no crime that would deprive you of my love... I acknowledge you... you are Perfect just as you are. ", which Lumir Love - Buddha Maitreya shared with us out of his immeasurable compassion, we believe that this mantra expresses something that cannot be understood unless the being is morally fit enough to do so. Especially if, to the detriment of other beings, some being, for his own and private reasons, takes it out of context and places it in another context that suits him based on the degree of suffering to which the being is currently subject. For those genuinely interested in their spiritual realization, Lumír Láska, in his book MAITREYA BUDDHA SUTRA, or HAPPINESS... THE MOTHER OF THE INFINITY HEIRS, gives specific instructions for working with this profound mantra so that it may be of benefit to them in their subjectivities.

Regarding Markéta Bartosová's statement "another fiery post, where Lumír Láska calls for withdrawal from the EU and the restoration of Czechoslovakia, with Daniel Landa as president and Mr. Volný, a well-known poverty merchant, Russia lover and opponent of veils, as his advisor, speaks of "a collection of beings who rightly do not deserve the name and label of people"

we state:

That we believe that in view of the karmic burden already mentioned above, to which we believe Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is subject, it is perfectly natural for a person who lives in repression to regard emotions as his enemies, which he consequently then represses. We believe that this is a huge gap in the spiritual development of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová. Therefore, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová does not work with her emotional body either because she does not know how to work with it or because she refuses to work with it for some reason. The consequences of skipping this - in our opinion necessary - spiritual practice, then, we believe, manifest themselves in the form of the consequences of aggressive and emphatic speeches, and this is also how the whole speech (which at first glance looks condescending) of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová affects us.

To this we further state that there is a seemingly subtle - but crucial - difference in the emotional expression of a person who does not repress himself, and in the expression of a person who harbours his own unprocessed resentment in his heart, which is directly proportional to the level of his suffering, which is directly related to the gaps in his spiritual practice, in the sense of the realisation of the Knowledge of the Buddha. This is also related to the fact that two people's seemingly identical manifestations may not actually be identical.

We believe that a person who is capable of self-reflection and who controls himself enough to restrain his passions can then afford to express himself passionately. Likewise, there are many examples of spiritual Masters who have been known to manifest passionately - among them, for example, the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Tibetan lama Buddha Marpa the Translator, a disciple of Buddha Nāropa and teacher of Buddha Milarēpa.

In addition to the above, Lumír Láska himself has often said that one of the most difficult spiritual disciplines ever is the realization that even if one acts sincerely and honestly, it does not mean that others will do so as well. If it is not natural to them, they will simply act as it is natural to them. We believe that it is perfectly natural for beings who are subject to suffering to use every piece of information out of context to do what is natural to such beings, which is to repeat the suffering until they transcend duality and end the suffering they are subject to.

Nor, for the reasons given, do we expect that such a person would have any sympathy for an ordinary (out-of-context here) expression of emotion, about which there is nothing inherently wrong, and which, we believe, is naturally judged as "wrong" only by someone who recognizes it as wrong in himself. We do not think that this has anything to do with Lumír Láska. We also believe that it is an imprint of karma and an attempt to transmit it, that is, an attempt to establish a karmic connection of suffering with beings who are willing to participate in such suffering. We also believe that this is naturally impossible in the presence of beings who work with the emotional body. So if we are correct in what we perceive in this way, then we compassionately and lovingly recommend to Mrs. Markéta Bartoš the work with the emotional body, without which we believe it is impossible for her to express herself naturally and authentically.

Specifically, Ms. Markéta Bartosová's labeling of Mr. Volný as a "known poverty merchant, Russia lover and opponent of veils".

we state:

That in view of the fact that we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová puts herself in the position of "a representative of a privileged religious group, which, in comparison with other spiritual currents, has the exclusive right to grant spiritual permissions, blessings and authorizations", we state that we believe that it is Mrs. Markéta Bartošová who trades in poverty. If, then, Mr. Volný is indeed a lover of Russia and Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is bothered by this, then we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is not even aware that she is defining herself against Russia, which we consider to be an open expression of xenophobia, which, we believe, is not worthy of a nun who allows herself to be called Venerable. Furthermore, whether or not Mr Volný is an opponent of the veils is his own free and sovereign decision, and if Ms Markéta Bartošová refers to Mr Volný as an opponent of the veils, we believe she is directly involved in suggesting to Mr Volný that his own free and sovereign decision is not in order and as such has no weight, which we believe is on the part of someone who claims to be a representative of the Teachings of the Buddha, i.e. A Teaching that honors the Rights and Freedoms of All Beings, is extremely wrong. Since we sympathize with Mr. Free precisely because - as it seems to us - he is the one who proposes free and open discussion in all respects, we dare say that he certainly has nothing against Mrs. Markéta Bartos being a "receiver of veils". In this sense, we believe that while Ms. Markéta Bartošová has spoken out against the sovereign rights and freedoms of Mr. Volný, Mr. Volný has not spoken out against the Honorable nun Tenzin Palmo. With this in mind, we also believe that a politician may have a deeper spiritual level in terms of recognition of the rights and freedoms of sentient beings than a spiritual leader, but it is just as naturally possible for the opposite to be true.

With regard to the statement by Ms Markéta Bartošová "Lumír Láska speaks of 'a collection of beings who do not rightly deserve the name and designation of human beings'", we note that this is a sentence taken out of context, and we also believe that this taking out of context - without giving the source of the entire text - in itself indicates that this is again a purposeful act on the part of Ms Markéta Bartošová. We would like to add that Lumír Láska spontaneously expressed himself in this way about people who are dishonest and dishonest, and it is therefore up to everyone, regardless of what they think of Lumír Láska, to reflect on his text - in the sense of whether or not he himself is honest and honest. The link to the full text can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1387305578295081&id=100010469569311

Specifically to the statement of Mrs. Markéta Bartosová: "But what happens if one dares to think critically and express oneself in one of the dozen or so Facebook groups promoting Mr. and his books, T-shirts and mugs and likes to share posts from pro-Russian disinformation websites and a kind of Ukrainian sect that outwardly presents a creative society but also proclaims that Putin will free the Slavs from American subjugation, one's own opinion or share a negative experience?"

we state:

That, given our assumption that this is xenophobia (as stated above), Ms. Markéta Bartosová appears to us, on the contrary, to be "pro-American". We have nothing against this kind of her definition and distinction, but for ourselves we state that we are neither pro-Russian nor anti-Russian, that we are neither pro-Ukrainian nor anti-Ukrainian, that we are neither pro-American nor anti-American, that we are only pro-human. Furthermore, we state that if we had found any dishonesty on the part of Mr Volný towards Mrs Bartoš, we would have stood up for her. We believe that it is precisely in ordinary, human and loving kindness that Mrs Markéta Bartošová fails as a human being and therefore has no choice but to define herself politically in this way and to make excuses. As far as we are concerned, we recognise every nation and the people in it. As far as we are concerned, we value the culture of every nation and we are happy to be part of the world's cultural heritage in this sense.

In addition to the above, we would like to say that if Mrs. Markéta Bartosová really leaned on Professor Anna Hogen, PhD, CSc, to the Allatra movement, to Mr. Lubomír Volný, and to the beings in the role of rinpoche or swami operating in the Czech basin, whose authority Mrs. Markéta Bartošová - as it seems to us - has questioned, then we also believe that this in fact speaks who Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is - in the sense of her tendency to politically and religiously exclude and define herself, and not about who Lumír Láska and the Sangha of the Heart of Dharma are, nor about who Professor Anička Hogenová is, what the Allatra movement is, or who Mr. Volný is. In addition to the above, we further state that we are not prevented from cooperating in mutual respect with any spiritual group or being of good will representing any spiritual direction pursuing the interest of all beings without distinction, including Mrs. Markéta Bartos. Ms. Markéta Bartošová goes on to ask "But what happens if one dares to think critically and express oneself in one of about a dozen Facebook groups promoting Mr. L. and his books, T-shirts and mugs", while she has posted her article on www.buddhaweb.cz, which includes an e-shop that promotes articles by spiritual movements related to Ms. Markéta Bartošová, their literature and other items. In view of this fact, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is incapable of self-reflection and therefore of real critical thinking.

Regarding Ms. Markéta Bartosová's statement, "some of the dozen or so Facebook groups promoting Mr. L. like to share posts from pro-Russian disinformation websites".

we state:

That we believe that Ms. Markéta Bartošová defines herself as "pro-American" and in this tendency to extremism anticipates the same tendency to extremism in other beings - for example, in the sense that they define themselves as "pro-Russian" just because a person has dared to express himself in the sense that he disagrees with some partial issue. We believe, therefore, that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, under the influence of her tendency to conflict, is thus confronted with her own misunderstanding, in which she sticks to the surface of situations. We believe that one can avoid such suffering only if one is impartial, i.e., if one does not take sides except for human rights and freedoms as such, i.e., the teachings of the Buddha. In view of the above, we therefore believe that Ms. Markéta Bartosová herself does not recognize what are disinformation sites and what are not. Furthermore, we consider the speeches made by Ms. Markéta Bartošová to be expressions of disrespect for human beings, where such speeches are themselves a major warning sign for us with regard to sources that we consider to be sources of disinformation.

As for Ms. Marketa Bartošová's statement that "some of the dozen or so Facebook groups promoting Mr. L. and his books, T-shirts and mugs, and liking to share posts from a kind of Ukrainian sect that outwardly presents a creative society but also proclaims that Putin will free the Slavs from American subjugation".

we repeat:

That we will gladly establish cooperation with any spiritual current or direction that also recognizes all other spiritual currents and directions and in this sense pursues the interest of all humanity. We believe that the spiritual movement Allatra, which advocates religious tolerance, has succeeded in unifying this interest into the Eight Pillars of the Creative Society, i.e. into eight pillars on which a new world can be built (https://allatraunites.com/cs/8-osnov-tvorive-spolecnosti). We note that it is possible that under the banner of different spiritual traditions there may be people who, based on their own karmic imprints, may act in an extremist manner, but this does not mean that we therefore reject the whole tradition with its lofty ideas and ideals. We believe that Ms. Markéta Bartosová, based on her previous disappointments with people, is afraid to face the new global and societal challenges, which are mainly that if we meet someone who expresses extremist religious or national intolerance, it will be us who will bring light to the situation in the form of a proposal to get along in mutual interpersonal respect.

Then, as regards the statement by Ms Markéta Bartosová: "But what happens if one dares to think and express oneself critically, to have one's own opinion or to share a negative experience?"

We state:

That we believe that having an opinion is one thing, and the inclination to aggressively egotistically attack and scold oneself just because I have a different opinion is another, quite different thing. Regarding the content of the quotations from publicly available sources that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is trying to convey, although these are contents that anyone interested can look up on their own, we would like to state that we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is obviously devoting herself to superfluous efforts instead of her own spiritual practice, which will certainly not make her happy. Furthermore, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová, from her position as a sort of imaginary authority of the spiritual police, either automatically assumes that all people who share something about someone never have any dishonest intentions and therefore always speak the truth under all circumstances, or she is very well aware of the opposite, but it suits her to do so. However, if Ms. Markéta Bartosová is aware of the above, it means that she is taking advantage of the situation. We know from our experience that not every person has honesty and sincerity in their character. For if this were the case, suffering would not be present and the Teachings of the Buddha would lack meaning and significance. We consider qualities such as honesty and sincerity to be rare, and we believe that in the suffering cycle of birth and death of Samsara it is only natural that it is much easier to acquire negative information about anyone than positive information. And in all this, we do not now even take into account the motivation of the one who procures it - for his own purposes on the basis of the suffering he himself is subject to. We believe that it is perfectly natural for beings who do not value themselves, nor their own honor and sincerity, to orient themselves toward what is more easily attainable for them, thinking that they might thereby gain some honor, which we consider to be self-deception.

We further conclude that if we did not see the point in other, more pious activities and felt - for some reason unknown to us - the need to devote our precious time to occupy ourselves with writing similar articles about anyone, it would be no hardship. But instead, we devote our precious time to something that is not so easy anymore (because it requires a truly selfless investment), i.e. spiritual practice and its sharing for the sake of all other beings.

We also believe that if Mrs. Markéta Bartosová has already come across some, for her, alarming information, and from her position of spiritual authority she was really afraid that perhaps one of the beings might suffer some kind of harm, she should have first made all her selfless efforts to personally verify the information with the other party, which did not happen. And because she did not do so, we believe that she has committed an act on her part that is not in accordance with the Buddha Teaching, because she may have caused harm to those whom she did not even attempt to interview. Not everyone knows this, but a Buddhist monk is committed to his service to all beings without distinction. For this reason, he simply must not and cannot allow himself - with regard to impartiality - to abandon even a single being in his heart, lest - just on his part - harm be caused to such, even a single being. If there were, it would mean that such a being had been left at the mercy of Mrs Markéta Bartos. Every true Buddhist monk knows that if he fails in this very thing, he will suffer the karmic consequences. In view of the above, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová treats others as she actually relates to herself. We also believe that Lumir Love and the members of the Heart of the Dharma Sangha have been abandoned and left to their own devices by Markéta Bartos, a nun from the monastery who allows herself to be addressed as "Venerable Tenzin Palmo" in this sense. Not only that, but we also believe that this nun of the monastery has done so on purpose, to the detriment of other beings, in order to make herself and the tradition in which she operates more visible. In view of the above, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová has, in a spiritual sense, abandoned both herself and the beings on both sides in order to secure an advantage for herself at their expense, which - in view of the formation of distressing karmic connections - has in fact benefited neither herself nor anyone else. Considering that a Buddhist monk is committed to the service of all other beings indiscriminately, we believe that such an action on the part of Mrs. Markéta Bartos is extremely unacceptable, all the more so because it comes from someone who states "I would like to emphasize in particular the aspect of monasticism, because its role is extraordinary."

Specifically, then, to Ms. Markéta Bartosová's statement, "Mr. L. and his supporters subsequently accuse the author of the article of lying, distortion, perversion, pettiness, hatred... I don't know if the list is exhaustive. Finally, in a manipulative way (by inferring envy from the mere statement of the considerable financial costs and their perhaps not entirely appropriate use), they try to awaken feelings of guilt in him as follows: " we state:

That we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová, the nun who allows herself to be called "Venerable", gives us the impression that instead of making a real effort and putting her genuine and selfless efforts into bringing the feuding parties to reconciliation (when information about the friction reaches her), She, on the other hand, finds a special delight in the fact that they are at odds with each other, which, we suspect, she sees as her opportunity to evaluate these matters (completely out of context for her) from her position and draw her own conclusions from them in order to make herself visible.

Therefore, we believe that such disputes are in fact convenient for Mrs. Marketa Bartoš, especially for her to evaluate and judge these out-of-context matters from her place of spiritual authority, and then to draw her own conclusions from them, because she sees this as an opportunity for self-realization through the role of a judge who defends the rights of beings; that is, through a role in which she would find her justification. We believe that it is Ms. Markéta Bartos's escape that makes her forget her own unprocessed traumas. Therefore (not only do we believe that Ms Markéta Bartošová is not pursuing lofty goals), we further add that a judge is supposed to meet the basic requirement of impartiality, which, we believe, is out of the question in Ms Markéta Bartošová's case.

Unless we are mistaken, the pursuit of such short-term worldly goals, which are to the detriment of the one who pursues them, and therefore to the detriment of all other beings, does not lead to happiness and is therefore an action that is not in accordance with the Teachings of the Buddha.

In view of the foregoing, we submit that we do not consider it dignified for a nun of a monastery who allows herself to be called "Venerable Tenzin Palmo" to disseminate, publish and pass off as credible such information in any way on her behalf under these circumstances without first giving the opposite party an opportunity to express himself in a manner worthy of his own. We believe that such an act is in direct violation of rights and freedoms, we believe that it is a form of aggressive act against the rights and freedoms of the individual under the tactics of someone who calls herself a nun, who allows herself to be called "Venerable", which we consider to be an act of dishonesty, i.e., unworthy of respect. Such an act is therefore neither honourable nor dignified. We also note that every Buddha - by the very nature of Samsara - has had, has had, and will continue to have his diehard opponents and his cousins the Dávadattas (see the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni called GAUTAMA), yearning for power and dominance over him, until they too awaken. We feel that to comment separately on such information afterwards is equally beneath our dignity, so we will only mention a preview in the form of rhetorical questions for food for thought:

Is it possible that information is not always just as it is presented? Is it possible, for example, that someone has not been honest with Lumira Laska and the members of the Heart of Dharma Sangha in the sense that they have tried to get on the backs of others to reach some imaginary pinnacle in a structure that does not really exist in our presence? Could it be that such beings in their own suffering consider this to be their own failure? Is it possible that such beings then, at a safe distance, where Lumir Love and Sangha Heart of Dharma cannot openly express themselves, merge together and aggressively describe their experiences in a twisted way that suits them, so that they can even put up with themselves in this psychological hell?

Is it possible that one of the beings fell in love with Lumir Love and wished him to devote himself exclusively to her, so that he would be at her - against his free will - will? Is it possible that Lumir Love and the Sangha of the Heart of Dharma do not consider such an action to be an act of love? Is it possible that in a similar way one of the beings fell in love with one of the members of the Sangha of the HEART OF DHARMY and wished him to devote himself exclusively to her and to be - against his free will - at her will? If so, is it possible that the one who has failed to make the objects of his desire subservient to such a form of pseudo-love experiences a period of disgraced love which is capable of anything in the sense of unworthy action? Could it be that such beings believe that if it were not for Lumiere Love, they would have succeeded in making the object of their desire subordinate to themselves? If so, is it possible that in such a subjective frame of mind they might perceive Lumír Love as an obstacle to their happiness? If so, is it possible that such beings might not even realize that, were it not for Lumír Love as the cause and condition, it would not in fact be possible for such beings to encounter the objects of their desire at all? Further, is it possible that beings who are unaware of these basic connections are actually facing themselves and may be desperate in their psychospiritual crisis? And if so, is it possible that desperate beings act desperately?

Is it then further possible that such beings are in fact unable to accept that the object of their desire refuses to have anyone assert dominant, i.e., instinctual, ways on him, because it is unworthy of him, because he himself does not treat anyone in such a way, and because he is in fact expressing unconditional love for all beings without distinction, which is therefore unnoticed and misunderstood by beings subject to their suffering?

Is it possible that such reprobate loves may feel a degree of disappointment because they cannot come to terms with the failure to demonstrate their own propensity to assert dominance over the objects of their desire?

Could it be that unworthy beings are actually ashamed of their actions in front of worthy beings, and worthy beings may therefore be irritated by them? Is it possible that such beings may interpret this to mean that someone dislikes them when they do not?

Is it possible that the presence of the Lumiere of Love and the Sangha of the Heart of Dharma may therefore offend some disgraced beings? Is it possible that such reprobate loves may, just as they desire the objects of their desire, desire revenge upon them, for which they will use every possible and available means? Is it possible that such reprobate loves actually try to keep in touch with the objects of their desire in a negative way, for example, by sacrificing their lives, which could be filled with service to others, to work on anti-campaigns in which they associate themselves with other dishonest beings against honest and sincere beings in a way that is undignified for them, just to portray themselves as the "good" ones and to point out the "bad" ones? Isn't such behavior perfectly natural for the representatives of such suffering beings? Doesn't it rather say something that such beings don't really accept themselves and instead look up to the objects of their desire, against whom they fight without being asked? Isn't this really an expression of love and not accepting the breakup?

Is it possible, then, that such reprobate loves are in fact in no way related to the Lumira Love and the Heart of the Heart Dharma Sangha, since they are unprocessed karmic connections that are fundamentally based not only on the relationship with the parents, but especially on the relationship with oneself, and then on the overall attitude towards the whole world and any beings associated in it?

Could it also be that Lumir Love and the Heart of Dharma Sangha face frequent attacks from partners or parents of any gender who perceive them as a threat because their children, partners and parents have become interested in the Buddha Teachings that lead them to dignity and independence? Is it possible, therefore, that such beings think that if it were not for Lumir Love and the Sangha Heart of Dharma, they would not have lost their claims which they could endlessly enforce on their fellows in their tendency to assert dominance?

If all this is possible, then we believe that such beings desire love, which they will never find, because love can only be found by sharing it in a selfless way - not by exacting it in selfish ways. By this we mean that as long as any being thinks that it will be happy if it is pleased, and unhappy if it is not, it is the being itself that creates such a condition of happiness in itself, and because it creates it, it is the being itself that causes its own suffering - no matter with what beings it is in what karmic connection, by which we mean, that we are all the same, because we really only get the love that we ourselves are willing to offer to the world, which means that there is a wonderful justice to it, and therefore there is no need for anyone to be jealous of us, or envious of us, or perhaps to keep an undignified policing of who has what, because the responsibility for who has what is everyone's own.

We further point out that we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová does not know all the contexts of relationships, but she comments on them as if she did. In order for her to be able to comment in a truly relevant way, a condition of impartiality would be necessary, which Ms Markéta Bartošová has not fulfilled, because she has never been interested in the other party. Furthermore, we would like to remind you that when collecting any information, it is primarily the motivation that tells us about the character of the person who is collecting this information - whether he is interested in all beings disinterestedly or whether he is pursuing only and exclusively his own interests. We cannot imagine that, for example, Lumír Láska or anyone from the Heart of Dharma Sangha would collect information in order to investigate the relevance of the relationship between, for example, Mrs. Markéta Bartošová and the Dalai Lama with the aim of questioning it, or with the aim of questioning either of them in connection with the Teachings of the Buddha. We point this out to make it clear that we are responding to the possible ways of morally weak individuals, not to traditions as such.

As to the other opinions which we believe that Ms. Markéta Bartoš has collected in every way possible for her own aims and purposes, we note that we believe that Ms. Markéta Bartoš has gone to great lengths to to create the impression of a "burden of proof" against Lumír Lásko, which is all too easy for a person who is a public figure, especially if one concentrates on collecting opinions that suit the person collecting them. The same can be said of the spiritual movement that is the Sangha of the Heart of the Dharma.

On the statement of Mrs. Markéta Bartosová: "I think it is sufficiently clear from the above that the community founded by Mr. L. bears some typical characteristics of a cult: first, it gives a feeling of exceptionalism (even the closest followers, the so-called "cult", are not only the followers of Mr. L.). The most immediate followers, the guides, are called awakened masters), but later, if someone expresses himself in a way that is different from the leader's wishes, instead of a substantive discussion, manipulation comes in - diverting attention from the essence of the problem, suggesting something that has not been said at all, and humiliating and belittling uncomfortable individuals, either those who ask uncomfortable questions or those who have some reservations about the person of Mr. Love or the functioning of the community. It may not be a fatal experience, but it is certainly not a pleasant one:"

We state:

That we believe that Ms. Markéta Bartosová, in pointing out the "weight of evidence" she has taken pains to provide, is again suggesting to the reader "I think it is sufficiently obvious from the foregoing", which we consider to be gross manipulation. A person who does not try to influence others leaves it up to them to decide what is or is not obvious to them. We believe that this is the subjective disposition of a person who moves in a circle of beings who are competing to see who knows more and to whom what is more obvious to know. We believe that this is an inferiority connected with a kind of mockery of the people to whom Mrs. Markéta Bartošová addresses her article, people who would probably not have understood all that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová wrote if Mrs. Markéta Bartošová had not first made it clear to them. We consider this to be an act of condescension, but, in view of what has already been said, not a personal one, because we believe that it is in fact a public confession about how Mrs Markéta Bartošová talks to herself in her subjectivity.

As to Markéta Bartošová's statement: 'We can relatively easily avoid similar experiences if we use our own judgement and concepts rather than impressions. And to be interested in the source texts and trusted commentaries of teachers who do not deny what is said in the sutras and teach their students critical inquiry rather than admiration for their uniqueness. Then we won't fall for a false signature even if it aims very high. Tenzin Palmo"

we state:

We believe that Ms. Markéta Bartos suggests to the reader that she is a trusted spiritual authority who knows how to use her own judgment and work with concepts correctly. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová does so at the expense of Lumír Lásky, the Sangha of the Heart of Dharma, and the beings of others - in the sense that she builds her credibility on the principle of humiliating some in order to elevate herself in the eyes of others. We believe that Ms. Markéta Bartos recommends that people should avoid their own life experiences and rather rely on the recommendations that Ms. Markéta Bartos considers relevant. Therefore, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová considers Lumír Láska and Sangha Heart of Dharma as her opportunity to make herself visible as a spiritual authority. We believe that a nun who allows herself to be called "Venerable Tenzin Palmo" is unworthy of such an act.

Specifically to the statement of Ms. Marketa Bartos: "And to be interested in the source texts and credible commentaries of teachers who do not deny what is said in the sutras and teach their students critical examination rather than admiration for their uniqueness." we state:

That we believe that Ms Markéta Bartošová is passing off some texts as "source texts", but she is not specific about what she means by that. For the sake of clarity, we state that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová does not have in her hands any texts written by the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni himself, called GAUTAMA, so that she can speak of them as "source texts". Furthermore, if Mrs. Markéta Bartosová speaks of any teachers as "trustworthy", then we state that she has the right, which no one denies her, to trust whomever she herself sees fit, but she does not have the right to deny that same freedom of choice to anyone else.

Furthermore, if Mrs. Markéta Bartosová speaks about the fact that some teachers are trustworthy in her opinion because they do not deny what is said in the sutras, then we state that if the sutras are perceived only in a superficial way from the level of dialectics, it is quite natural that they contradict each other at this level.

If Markéta Bartosová does not understand this, then she does not understand why the teachers she considers trustworthy are actually trustworthy. For this reason, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová - from her spiritual level - confesses the teachers she considers trustworthy as spiritual authorities on the basis of her faith in them, and not on the basis of her lived spiritual experience with them. Unless we are mistaken, Mrs. Markéta Bartošová says from this place of faith that these teachers teach their students critical examination, and it is for this reason that we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová herself reveals to us in this way that she herself is not qualified for critical examination. If, then, we are not mistaken, and Mrs. Markéta Bartošová worships her teachers on the basis of faith and admiration for them, which may be regarded as a notion of uniqueness, it is quite possible that she then anticipates the same in Lumír Lásky. To the above, we further note that this has nothing to do with teachers as such, but with how - we believe - Mrs. Markéta Bartosová experiences this in her subjectivity.

We further state that it is only after a being has made a spiritual experience mentally independent of concepts that the sutras as such can be understood, otherwise it is impossible. Therefore, we believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartosová's ideas "if we use our own judgment and concepts rather than impressions" are "out of place" in this context. We are astonished that no one has to this day initiated a nun from a monastery who took monastic vows from the Dalai Lama into this spiritual experience, especially considering that the Tibetan Buddha Milärepa was significant for this very reason, that he was not a scholar at all, and anyone who tried to sell his scholarship to him, like Mrs. Markéta Bartošová to us, was simply and plainly overcome by the depth of his insight into the nature of reality. To this we further state that Buddha Milärepa himself faced a lama who was jealous of him, because up to the moment Buddha Milärepa appeared in his reality he had many supporters who showed him favour and respect and gave him many offerings. Therefore, it is believed that just because one is a scholar does not guarantee that one has really developed the qualities of loving-kindness. In the words of the Buddha Milärepa, then, for the sake of contemplation, we add:

"Those who find pleasure in evil actions and do not enjoy themselves in truly beneficial actions accumulate the consequences of evil karma. Only a sincere desire for what is beneficial to all beings can purify the effects of such karma. Those who do not know themselves and their own mental limitations and proclaim themselves to be authorities expose themselves and others to shame. He who does not know his own bonds cannot understand the causes and consequences of the suffering of the beings he wishes to lead. In order to attain practical knowledge, give up all exercises that strengthen your evil passions, because they lead to selfishness, even if they appear virtuous at first sight. The life of every being is short and the moment of death uncertain, so act in such a way that you need not be ashamed of yourselves. Therefore avoid evil deeds, even at the cost of your own life, and thus gain the karmic merit of goodness to the best of your ability. If you do so, you can be sure that you will never act against the orders of the highest Buddhas, even if the spiritual orders speak against you. If you do so, my heart will be satisfied and you have fulfilled your duties to Samsara and Nirvana. Any other action is not in the interest of all beings, and is therefore useless and displeasing to me. No other doctrine can satisfy me, however pleasing it may appear from a worldly point of view."

It is clear from the above that common secular ideas of what spiritual authority should look like can be misleading, and they can be misleading even when they are based on information from so-called authentic sources. We are convinced that the only possible measure in this respect can only be the degree of subtlety of a particular individual, which is directly and closely related, in particular, to whether such an individual wishes to know the truth because he cares about himself, because he no longer wants to deceive himself, i.e., again, humility towards himself instead of wearing an external mask. Furthermore, if Markéta Bartošová speaks of "critical examination", we believe that one is capable of critical examination only after one has developed self-reflection.

Specifically, to the statement of Mrs. Markéta Bartošová: "Then we will not fall for a fake signature, even if it aims very high. Tenzin Palmo"

We state:

That Ms. Markéta Bartosová, according to our sources, has been a Buddhist since 2009, has accepted some belief in some texts, has accepted some spiritual guidance from some spiritual authorities, which we have nothing against, and which we do not question, but we believe, that it is not appropriate on the part of Ms. Markéta Bartos to deny anyone this right of free choice, to define herself against any free religion of other beings, especially if no one denies her this right of free choice and does not define herself against it. We believe that Ms. Markéta Bartosová, from her place of religious belief - which is a belief like any other - is waging her own private holy war and aggressive crusade against those who are, from her point of view, "infidels." In summary, unless we are mistaken, Ms. Marketa Bartos has believed something for 12 years without it being her family's traditional faith, based on that belief she becomes Venerable Nun Tenzin Palmo, and from her position this nun is now telling us that someone else cannot believe what they want to believe. There are a huge number of different spiritual traditions that interpret the Teachings of Christ, just as there are a huge number of different spiritual traditions that interpret the Teachings of the Buddha. Can we say that any one of them is more true than another?

Regarding the statement of Ms. Markéta Bartosová: "P.S.: Most of the quotes come from publicly available posts and discussions on social media, and some of them come from an interview that was consented to by a former follower of Mr. L. We have much more serious statements about Mr. L.'s practices, but we do not publish them because we want to protect the privacy of the author, who is already in a difficult situation."

We state:

That we believe that with dishonest motivation, any material in the hands of the one who has it will turn into what he is. As a result, everyone will be faced with themselves and what their true intentions and motivations were, and there will be no excuse, which is perfectly fair.

As regards the statement by Mrs Markéta Bartosová: 'We have much more serious statements about Mr L's practices, but we are not publishing them because we want to protect the privacy of the author, who is already in a difficult situation.'

We state:

We believe that this is again a gross manipulation, to which a similar response can be made, for the sake of argument and with exaggeration: "We have spoken to eyewitnesses that Mrs MB has done terrible things, but to protect those eyewitnesses from Mrs MB, we can't tell you, but believe us, they are indeed terrible, believe us, they are indeed." CONCLUSIONS:

We believe that in Markéta Bartošová's speeches we have registered a tendency towards extreme exclusivity on the spiritual level and a tendency towards xenophobia on the national and religious level. We believe that such speeches are unacceptable on the part of Ms Markéta Bartosová, who allows herself to be called 'Venerable Tenzin Palmo', who, according to our sources, has taken monastic vows from the Dalai Lama, especially when he himself preaches religious tolerance and global cooperation in the interests of world peace. We believe that a nun who allows herself to be called 'Venerable Tenzin Palmo' should always and uncompromisingly place universal human rights above political, national or religious affiliation.

We further state that, according to our sources, the roots of the Dalai Lama tradition go back to 1391, and thus, in this respect, we cannot speak of 'sources of traditional teachings that go back to the words of Buddha Shakyamuni himself', as the author or authors of the title of the article to which we are responding operate in the sense of elevating themselves as the real, authentic teachings of the Buddha and demeaning Lumiere Love and the Sangha Heart of Dharma as untrustworthy and inauthentic. We recall that the Noble Buddha Shakyamuni himself, called GAUTAMA, and many other Buddhas and lamas as well, faced various associations that attacked them in a similar manner.

We further state that each Dalai Lama is considered by those who acknowledge him to be an incarnation of the previous Dalai Lama and at the same time an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion.

We offer rhetorical questions to ponder: why, then, would anyone recognize the Dalai Lama and believe that Mrs. Marketa Bartos is now Venerable Tenzin Palmo on the basis of her taking monastic vows from him, and why, on the part of this lady, should others not, or even cannot, have the same right to their own views and beliefs and trust in anything or anyone? Is it not the case then that the Dalai Lama preaches religious tolerance and his representative, who himself has received monastic vows from him, does not follow his legacy? Does not Mrs. Markéta Bartosová thus deny the very person from whom she took her monastic vows? We think so, because we have the impression that Mrs Markéta Bartošová is a stranger to the recognition of the right to freedom of any religion. Nor do we object in any way to Mrs. Markéta Bartoš's recognition and profession of anyone and anything that makes sense to her in her life. However, we believe that she is receiving from us what she is not willing to do herself. We also believe that everyone, without distinction, has the right to freedom of religion, and we note that Mrs Markéta Bartosová is guaranteed this by us. We note again that we respect her views and beliefs and suggest that she should be spiritually renewed in this respect and that she should do the same in her spiritual practice - but we do not suggest that she should necessarily agree with us.

We believe that in order for one to develop the critical thinking that has been discussed and thus evolve spiritually overall, communication on a level, i.e., in mutual respect, is necessary, which is impossible if beings dogmatically concentrate on aggressively defending their beliefs as such.

We also believe that the whole emphatic speech of Mrs. Markéta Bartosová is a manifestation of moral weakness of a person who, from the place of her position, in order to promote herself as a spiritual authority, abused both herself and other beings.

We further believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová has chosen to do so in ways that bring discord between the parties, and not the harmony that one would expect from a true spiritual authority. We also believe that a true spiritual authority would have imparted to the feuding parties a lesson in the form of the Dharma (Teachings of the Buddha) that would have been a real comfort to them and would not have participated in anything that might have deepened the enmity between beings. It impresses upon us that such conduct is neither honest, nor sincere, nor selfless. We also believe that true spiritual authority puts the interests of all other beings above its own. For this reason, we suggest that anyone who hears anything about Lumír Lásko or Sanze SRDCE DHARMY, and who cares about their self-respect, should also verify the information directly with them, because if not, they may become a victim of targeted manipulation.

In view of the above, we believe that such a person who cannot trust himself cannot really trust anyone else either. We believe that it is then quite natural for someone who does not trust himself to distrust other beings as well, and then to form his own ideas about them according to his own inner settings. We believe that this is karma.

We further hold that it is perfectly natural for such a person to devote himself to the effort of reinforcing the effort of working to disbelieve the beings of others, regardless of who they are and regardless of having his own experience of them. This is all the more so in the case of Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, who is an authority of spiritual significance, as Lumír Láska undoubtedly is. We believe that this reflects Mrs. Markéta Bartošová's desire for recognition. We believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is too preoccupied with feeling and therefore does not naturally recognize the qualities that are possible for all who develop the willingness to recognize. We believe that the way in which Ms. Markéta Bartošová has expressed herself speaks volumes about how Ms. Markéta Bartošová approaches herself, what demands she makes of herself. We believe that it would help Mrs. Markéta Bartošová if she cultivated kindness towards herself, towards the "feeling" of lack that comes from this speech. It is not even possible for us to be angry with Mrs. Markéta Bartošová, because we deeply understand the unease that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is experiencing and suffering from.

In view of the above, we believe that Mrs Markéta Bartošová is unable to take responsibility for what she has created in her subjectivity and for the mental processes that are taking place in her subjectivity as a result of what she herself has given rise to.

In view of the above, we also believe that Mrs. Markéta Bartošová is incapable of mercy towards herself, and therefore we lack the elements of mercy in her by which she could be an example to us as a spiritual authority.

Further, then, we believe that rather than whether or not Lumír Láska is a spiritual authority for someone, it is more important for each being whether what Lumír Láska and the Sangha Heart of Dharma share is beneficial to them in a spiritual sense, that is, in a sense that allows beings to reduce the degree of subjective suffering, than whether it is Lumír Láska and the Heart of Dharma, or Mrs. Markéta Bartosová, or any other representative of any other spiritual tradition, who shares it.

In order to continually develop our critical thinking (which in our terms we call more of a discernment), we are open to all sources for that very reason, and we propose the same to each of the beings for the same reason.

For ourselves, we attend to what makes sense to us, and conversely, we pass by unnoticed what does not make sense to us. That's how we take responsibility for ourselves, and that's how we're guaranteed to use our own judgment and not have to rely on the comments of people we've been told are trustworthy or the comments of people who don't take responsibility for their own judgment.

As for Lumir Love, just listen to some of his interviews and see the love, enthusiasm and passion with which he speaks to all beings, which would not be possible if he did not love all beings indiscriminately. Lumir Love loves even those who are jealous, perceiving their hatred and resentment as an expression of favor.

The Sangha of the HEART OF DARMA hereby thanks Mrs. Marketa Bartosova for her article, which had the effect that the beings who slumber only on the surface, who are not wishing and who are primarily concerned with some kind of benefits and badges, immediately turned away, but all the more clung to such beings who, on the contrary, are wishing; such beings who no longer refuse to play games of "us versus them"; such beings who will not be led away from their inner freedom by anyone or anywhere.

May all beings, including Mrs. Markéta Bartošová, register and recognize the primordial Buddha state within themselves and thus realize their own enlightenment!

With love and respect

Sangha HEART OF DHARMA