Bindi

Perhaps we can at least agree that we do need to go beyond ego and the senses. I'm not stuck on the word 'destroy', I'm happy to go with 'let fall away' or 'let drop' or 'disentangle' etc. I only like the word 'Destroy' because it is a nice strong stance against the ego-self. The next point of contention would then be whether effort or no effort is needed to accomplish this

Tantra is very much associated with one particular energy, kundalini, and its transmission through shaktipat, and sexual energy is one of the methods used in Tantra to initiate kundalini energy. Does this make kundalini energy sexual, or is kundalini just perceived as sexual when it is felt in the lower chakras?

When identified with the ego, the Self appears other than what it is. It may appear smaller than a hair's breadth. But know the Self to be infinite. (Shvetashvatara Upanishad. 5:8-9) The supreme Self is neither born nor dies. He cannot be burned, moved, pierced, cut, nor dried. Beyond all attributes, the supreme Self is the eternal witness, ever pure, indivisible, and uncompounded, far beyond the senses and the ego... He is omnipresent, beyond all thought, without action in the external world, without action in the internal world. Detached from the outer and the inner, This supreme Self purifies the impure. (Atma Upanishad. 3) I would say ego being necessary to function in the world is a limiting belief, as is the belief that it is not possible to destroy ego, these beliefs halt the attempt to destroy ego, and with it the possibility of knowing absolute reality. IMO the function of the ego is superseded by a reconditioned mature persona developed through spiritual work. Again IMO this is the work Ramana was involved in in his years of quiet contemplation after his initial Self-realisation as a boy, after which he was unwilling or even unable to interact with people. His ego was destroyed but he hadn't yet created a new persona with which to interact with the world. After his 'heart attack' incident where the energy moved from the right side of his heart to the left side, that mature persona in him was established and became functional. After this event he was able to interact with the people around him again with ease. The ego's phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into the source from where the 'I'-thought arises. - Ramana Maharshi Reality is simply the loss of ego. Destroy the ego by seeking its identity. Because the ego is no entity it will automatically vanish and reality will shine forth by itself. - Ramana Maharshi

Does jing = qi = shen?

These are some of the issues which we have been debating here. Fundamental differences of opinion like Papaji "did not believe fully transcending the ego was possible" will underlie his whole approach and perspective, and having a different fundamental opinion myself Papaji's perspective as well as his means and aims will always remain foreign to me. edit: I could even say that if complete dismantling/transcending of the ego isn't required, then I agree that Papaji's version of enlightenment or self-realisation is possible in a split second. But to transcend the ego completely time and effort will be required.

Is 'the eternal moment beyond time' a transient state that some experience, a taste of things to come if this state can one day be established, or is it a permanent state won in a moment without any previous work in this life or a previous life?

I would expect a 'true guru' to have completely transmuted sexual energy into a more refined energy form, therefore in his/her presence there would be no degree whatsoever of joint cultivation, and I can't see how the energy would be shared in a loop since the guru should be naturally radiating spiritual (not sexual) energy, but not taking on the presumably lower energy of the student. Guru's that connect on a tantric level are in a different category, I imagine being in their presence is just one more avenue for staying in delusion since untransmuted sexual energy is still operating in your scenario.

The story of the Flower Sermon appears to have been created by Chinese Chán Buddhists.[3] The earliest known version of the tale appeared in 1036 (wikipedia). Immediate realisation/enlightenment is not possible in my mind, the frameworks I relate to are the nadi's and the dantians, in the nadi system energy needs to travel through ida and pingala into the central nadi, this is neither quickly done nor can it be unconsciously achieved I suspect. Same with dantian work and bringing the energy up dantian by dantian, it's not quick and it doesn't just happen. Immediate 'non-dual' realisation is to me a mental state that has nothing to do with Self-realisation, The idea that all karma and all ego can disappear in a moment is the equivalent of saying all dantians and all nadis can be clear and appropriate energy flowing in a second. David Godman on Self-realisation... I don't think that there is an epidemic of Self-realization in the West or anywhere else. I think full realization is a rare phenomenon. There are certainly more people who think that they have realized the Self, but I think that they are deluding themselves.

A lot hinges on the word 'easy'. Biblical commentary states: His yoke is a 'good thing', not necessarily easy, the good or right thing can of course be the harder option, but if it gets you where you want to go then it's worth it. Also a yoke in itself is a very specific constraint used only for work and unnecessary when wandering around or grazing contentedly. True there is also the sense that what he requires in terms of work or effort is light, but personally I take this as light in comparison to the heavy burden of religious Law and strict observance that the Scribes and Pharisees had laid upon the shoulders of the people, which Jesus denounced emphatically (to put it kindly) and probably quite often. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” Acts 15:10-11

Because choosing to not respond is duality to you?

This is a very good place to examine this issue I think. Not responding was my take on it, I read these other two responses, recognizing them as they are, and being unaffected by them, in Buddhist discussion of this episode. I agree that to not respond at all is the key, and that all previous work is towards this. what sort of responding did you have in mind?

The Kularnava Tantra makes a fundamental error IMO in assigning the cause of the ‘fall of man’ to drinking, eating and sexual intercourse. It follows that its cure for ‘the fall’ is based on this wrong premise, and as such it is equally flawed to my thinking. If you find it persuasive that’s up to you and Jonesboy, this thread can be split for you to discuss its merits if you like.

From the little that I know of this text, indicates that this is my opinion, not a source that I am quoting "a wine-drinker is different from the drinkers of ecstasy" the ".." indicates that I am referring to your quote because wine is used ritually to induce ecstasy and is not to be confused with 'just drinking wine', same for sexual intercourse, this is my opinion, my understanding of this Tantra "the union of delight is between the ascending Sakti and the presiding Lord above, and not between man and woman" again the "..." are there to indicate this is your quote even though physically it is between a man and a woman. again my opinion (your bolding). It would have been hard to tell this was a source simply because it was not a source, it was a personal opinion. The source I was referring to when I wrote "If you don't like my sources" was Andrea R. Jain, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Purdue University Indianapolis whom you declared not credible.

What quote specifically did I copy of yours but add a a sentence to it to change it's meaning? Yes, the secret nocturnal rites of the 'shrichakra' (apparently composed of nine triangles: five pointing downward, said to represent the yoni, or vulva, and four pointing upward, said to represent the lingam, or phallus) are described in the Kularnarva Tantra. These rites are interpreted differently by different groups, but regardless these secret nocturnal rites are apparently written in the Kularnarva Tantra, no matter how they are interpreted. The aim of the sexual union is a high spiritual aim, good for them. I will not enter into further useless discussion on this topic.

If you don't like my sources, find your own, but please research the issue thoroughly first.

From the little that I know of this text, "a wine-drinker is different from the drinkers of ecstasy" because wine is used ritually to induce ecstasy and is not to be confused with 'just drinking wine', same for sexual intercourse, "the union of delight is between the ascending Sakti and the presiding Lord above, and not between man and woman" even though physically it is between a man and a woman. What did I miss exactly?

The professor of Religious studies noted that Muktananda quoted some sections of the Tantra frequently, while avoiding others sections that wouldn't go down well with a Western audience, presumably references to tantric sex. This claim requires research into Muktananda's discourses and a familiarity with the contents of the Tantra, for which she is no doubt well equipped, unless you believe otherwise?

The author Andrea R. Jain is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Purdue University Indianapolis. She is not a credible source?

Perhaps you can find it by searching; Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture By Andrea R. Jain and maybe add keywords Kularnava Tantra Muktananda.

When you say the method shifts, do you mean the Buddhist method is surpassed by the Christian method?

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=C2q6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=gbXpVimejz&sig=E4RGVyIlg04d5EWAsESkEM5xQDc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2mfCP2a3SAhWqxVQKHRCpA0k4ChDoAQgvMAQ#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vDfPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=p3Cpf22dkQ&sig=fLq8ZSoEwPR41wBQ4Z2Fls8PQoI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOrPLn1a3SAhUrqFQKHcZmCQoQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false I prefer these sort of Buddhists: Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance. A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself. The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi. To the seekers of truth the Buddha says: "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word). "But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them. "When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly." Furthermore, it must be mentioned that there are no petitional or intercessory prayers in Buddhism. However much we may pray to the Buddha we cannot be saved. The Buddha does not grant favors to those who pray to him. Instead of petitional prayers there is meditation that leads to self-control, purification and enlightenment. Meditation is neither a silent reverie nor keeping the mind blank. It is an active striving. It serves as a tonic both to the heart and the mind. The Buddha not only speaks of the futility of offering prayers but also disparages a slave mentality. A Buddhist should not pray to be saved, but should rely on himself and win his freedom. In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and punishes. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests. http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm Is it usual for God to hit an obstruction or fear?

A quick internet search tells me he also states in the Kularnava Tantra that without shaktipat there is no liberation or Self-realisation, which I absolutely disagree with, also I found that apparently Muktananda cited this exact text “frequently but selectively” because "it includes certain transgressive elements" that don’t sit well with "contemporary dominant ethical standards", so I am disinclined to take his opinion on gurus too seriously either. Do you mean "the only way to the Father is through the Father" or the only way to the Father is through the Son? It's not always so clear in the bible that "Jesus and the Father are one", how would you explain this: About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" -- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46-47

Reading the full passage referring to 'we are all one in Christ': For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 seems to very clearly refer to the equality of all baptised Christians being 'one in Christ', we aren't all one in Christ except through baptism. Everyone having the same inherent buddha-nature makes complete sense to me. TBH 'the shared space of the primordial Adam' sounds kind of new-agey to me, and a very personal theology. The potential to attain Buddha-nature was around before Jesus, as was the potential for 'Self-realisation', and these are enough for me.

I don't think he was a megalomaniac, I think the megalomaniac words just weren't spoken by him but by later Christians with an investment in the doctrine of faith only in Jesus. As another example, the Lord's prayer is addressed directly to the Father, not to Jesus as intermediary. But in your terms and preferably in your words, why can I only find the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus, why can't I seek it directly?

The only role I can imagine for a guru is to point you to the guru within. Jesus does this when he says seek the Kingdom of God within, but when he says that he himself is the only way to God, he is a religion at war with all other ways to God. Though being in the presence of a guru might bring a person to some desirable mental state, which incidentally requires no effort from the devotee, as soon as they leave the guru they will start to be as themselves again, so they have two choices. Stay with the guru so that s/he can keep you forever in the desired state, or find the place within that you desire to be in.