ilumairen

I think @steve was getting at the teachings about the view, are not the view. And I think perhaps you unintentionally used the very specific phrase "the view" to indicate a more general understanding shared in the teachings. P.S. Thanks for the book recommendation; I'm still reading, and finding what I've read so far interesting.

@Jonesboy I would like to look deeper into what's been presented. Would you share the title of the book and chapter in which the quote is found in?

(Skipping the quotes; the one from Norbu can be found on the previous page for anyone curious.) There are a number of ways to interpret the quote.. One would be what we see with the more recently posted question. The "or" of the quote indicating differentiation. We could also see the "or" as clarification, such as a unified understanding of energy and mind. I would lean towards the second way of looking at the quote, at which point there is no answer to the differentiation the question itself asserts.

My thoughts relate back to my experiences with my mother when I was young. For a number of reasons I won't get into here, being able to sense her energy was useful - especially when storm clouds were arising. She couldn't be reified as "mom" in those moments.. or it got "messy", especially as I was also then reifying myself as daughter, and reification seems to be where "expected roles" play out.

Is there an "I" holding onto the reified sense of self as a radiant being who will hit any issues and fears another reified individual may have? And how much would this understanding/expectation play into not just the understanding of any interaction, but also the arising forms and dynamics of interaction?

The sense of "lacking" is of interest here, and I'd question the awareness of a "radiant being" who left those around them feeling lacking. Do you mean personally lacking, as in they don't measure up, or lacking like co-dependence, and unable to function without the "other" person?

The world (and interactions) as reflection of our own mind is incredibly interesting, and understanding seems to become ever more subtle. For example, if we encounter one experiencing an aversion to some aspect we are manifesting, is this their reflection from within, or our reflection from without? And in those moments where "I" has fallen away, and is not asserting position does aversion arise anywhere?

It is the practice, and an excellent example of such. In this, there is a general understanding of having recieved the teachings (and the students he is practicing with have most likely recently received teachings on the practice).

I like the "two eyes of valid cognition."

And guru yoga, as preliminary practice, would be a bit like drinking from a font..

Undifferentiated essence would be a bit like water flowing into water...

This is kernals in the "karmic storehouse" or "smudges on the blackboard" type "stuff". One individual, in wanting to explore the "different potentials" (and express the superiority of their "system") tends to misunderstand and misrepresent what is shared by others. And then comes the fun part, either the individual being misrepresented quietly "submits" to the misrepresentation and lets it stand as is, or things like this post are presented. So either Jeff is left as being "right" about others practice and/or understanding, or it's "petty bickering? Perhaps keep considering and looking - with an eye to understand, instead of what comes across as habitual defense.

I see you added a link to another thread, and understand this topic is personally important to you. Perhaps tomorrow I'll take some time to read more of the thread you shared, however I don't know how much I want to become involved with yet another ongoing debate on this site - especially when I don't quite understand what the debate is about.

Was sharing a bit of the instruction for the practice, basically as written in the practice booklet for the Ngondro as taught by TWR (not defending a personal position). Connecting with Tapihritsa (a living buddha), as "the real embodiment" of the three kayas, the three jewels, all the masters, all the buddhas... "and the embodiment of your root lama."

In Bön, Tapihritsa is a living buddha, and not just the product of our imagination. We certainly do connect in our practice of guru yoga.

In considering this, both the Six Lokas and practice of Sherap Chamma as I was taught utilize both lower and higher tantra - which was recognized, and yet not put in these terms. Thank you for the clarification.

There was no "should" involved, and what was shared was only practical means to assist understanding. There was an understanding of play and personal exploration intended in the sharing. And the individual the sharing was intended for understood this. Tantra can be the "play" as form inseparable from emptiness, and it is also underscored (and I believe generally understood) as being nothing more than playing "pretend" with oneself if one invokes the form without an underlying understanding of emptiness. Which isn't to say anything about your experience and understanding, but to clarify misconception being set forth regarding my own - with both having an understanding of "meaningless mental exercise".

This thread has been like a waterway, at first a joyful bubbling stream to sit beside and enjoy; we stepped into the stream, and in following it's meandering course came upon some rocks and turbulence, perhaps some saw darkness, mystery and confusion which we can, through the practice of tantra observe, experience, and embue with our sense of beauty. A "reboot" and refocus on the topic.. warm regards fellow travellers.

Yes please.

I think it's just the manner of interacting. With people who are part of a lineage or tradition, certain words are understood in certain ways.. there is "lingo", and a "cultural flavour" (although the "culture" may be cross-cultural which is really neither here nor there). When those words are used in a different manner, effort must be made to understand intent rather than what's become (for the individual) standard usage. As it is one individual who tends to use words in what I'll call "non-conventional" ways, and as a means of expressing a view presented (by the individual) as differing from traditional views where those words have agreed upon meanings and indicate a pointing to certain experience, it seems somewhat unavoidable that there will be some focus on this individual and the words being shared. If it is any consolation, I'm finding this thread a bit confusing to, although there have been individuals who have shared some of their experience with, and understanding of, tantric practices.

Thanks for asking. The word was chosen to indicate "it" isn't "something" outside of oneself being given (as a gift) by "someone" outside of oneself, although perhaps at the outset it may appear (or be interpreted) as such. The Guru Yoga prayer is a request to receive the blessings to recognize one's "own true nature as a buddha." From the crown of my head Palace of great bliss I pray to you Benevolent root lama O precious one Grant me the blessings That I may recognize My own true nature As a Buddha I believe "clarity" would be naturally present, although perhaps not recognized (due to karmic seeds, proclivities and traces which are also addressed in the practice). And again, I'm only speaking from the experience and understanding of my own practice of guru yoga.

Eventually I'll address more in my ppd, but there are a variety of practices of guru yoga, and the guru yoga of Taphiritsa may feel different than the guru yoga of Sherap Chamma, although in all cases the "essence" is understood to be the same, and once practice is established it is "essence" one is "working with" and recognizing. Once stability starts to arise it is one's own essence as not different than the guru's or the yidam's one is resting in. Prior to trust in what we call "the inner refuge" being established, we trust in the guru or the yidam as refuge. This outer trust in the qualities we perceive others (guru and yidam) to have (and ourselves to lack), through practice and experience become an inner trust, and essence of guru/yidam is more deeply undifferentiated from our own essence. It's more about recognizing and realizing (an opening to) than being "gifted" clarity, although blessings certainly manifest.

First: Words were used in a pith-like manner - presented as simile. Second: The "deeper understanding" would be dependent upon it's reflection in the mind of the "perceiver" of the shared words. Third: There is very little difference between having read and remembered the explanations for the present pith in posts and the words shared on a message board, or in a book. And this speaks to the challenge I personally experienced in the contemplation. Fourth: Both Are dependent on words. Both are constructs and paradigms to express certain understandings. Fifth: For me "emptiness as a chalkboard" seems to be different than "emptiness as a dancing girl" only in soo much as the dancing girl expresses something dynamic, while a chalkboard seems static. And finally, this is meant as clarification and the sharing of consideration/contemplation, and not as personal attack. :swimming in the lake, toes touching the cool depths while sunlight reflects and dances upon my shoulders and face:

And emptiness has nothing to do with tantra? Yep, more roses.