RigdzinTrinley

I should have written ‘i follow a buddhist lineage that doesn't emphasize the jhanas or teach them explicitly’ That doesn't mean they are not there I goes the nyams of clarity, non thought and bliss are similar Those experience get stronger the more you sit with the correct view There is no emphasis on mental images (cant remember the name) I mean this phenomena when the mind gets so absorbed on the object of medtation that the object becomes a dot of light etc. Thats not emphasized in dzogchen The states of bliss non thought etc. Still happen though They are a hindrance if you grasp them to be rigpa but also a sign of warmth → you do something right

I don't know if I can answer your brainself question fully (because obviously I stilll have clinging to the aggregates as the self), but I will try my best to give you some imput I won't use actual madhyamika reasoning for now, I just try to share some basic teachings on the whole subject of the "brainself" If it doesn't satisfy I will post some quotes and reasonings into the unreality of the self done by Shantideva or Chandrakirti for now maybe this already can clarify some points for you: (I also have chai so it should be productive) first of course if you say that the self is the brain then also a brain in a glass jar is the self - that makes no sense right? also the decaying brain of a corpse would be the self... Ok something first, maybe that helps: buddhist logic and philosophy is a philosphy that is based on grammar and conceptual mind (it uses the shortcomings of conceptual mind and language to point to the enlightened non conceptual nature of mind - to use some dzogchen speak "you can't figure it out so just leave it as it is, don't fabricate") so its not like western logic based on math, its based on grammar and language (a critique of thinking mind made by an enlightened mind using concepts) so the closest we have to Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Shantideva, Aryadeva etc. and Buddha is Wittgenstein, not so much Plato or Pythagoras another point is that matter and mind have two different cuntinua - our sense of self is an imputation based on the aggregates (they include all subjective and objective phenomena - mind and matter) so there is merely a link betwenn mind and matter - they are dependently originated. Mind itself doesn't come from matter - thats the buddhist view (buddhism is not a materialist religion) our western flatland view is something like: if you put some chemicals together in a certain way you create a mind - thats non sense because if matter could produce mind then why is a stone not a person? because the way the chemicals are linked together is not correct so it can't create a mind? I don't know I don't know... now a computer could simulate a being: its matterial form and even certain behaviour - if you hit that computer generated orc it will hit back if you leave it in peace the orc won't mind you ... something like that. The simulated Orc obviously has reactive patterns of attachment/aversion is build from matter and information - still doesn't have a mind in a buddhist sense because matter and information (I mean 10010010000001 kind of information) alone can't produce a mind that will reincarnate (but probably here we can have a long strange sci fi discussion... oi weh - I see it coming) Also I feel that the idea: my self or mind is in the brain is an imputed sense of self, not the inborn sense of self (see my post above) why? because indians and tibetans say the mind comes from the heart - they point to their heart when speaking of "Me". Actually we do that too, but I feel because thinking is soooo important in our culture (we do way too much of it) we focus our attention on our brain - the prana goes out of balance (rises upwards) and some people in bad cases have tense shoulders, tense throats, migranes etc... and then yes suddenly our sense of self seems to be connected with our brain not with our heart both are wrong - and an imputed sense of self: means we learned to connect our sense of self with certain parts of our body and that attribution is different in different cultures (its usually never the right nostril btw. I will research why it is never the right nostril later) so is the self to be found within the aggregate of form? heart, brain, nostril what have you? like you said its not just one of those - it can't be - then maybe its a connection of those? So is it in the connection of lungs, heart, brain + the outer environment air, food, warmths etc ? lets say we have a nice corps (died unanatural death but still in a fantastic form), a relatively fresh one (blood is still liquid) - we prepare the lungs heart brain even big and small intestine - Oh what the hack lets just use the whole corpse and plug it into something that pumps in air, water, food - some little device that makes the heart pump etc. would it create a mind stream? and based on that the inborn sense of self? highly questionable - I would say No why? Mind and Matter have a different continuum. basically in indo tibetan buddhism what gives rise to your body is different things the red bindu (blood) of the mother and the white bindu (semen) of the father plus the blue bindu of conciousness not just the blood and semen of mother and father - also conciousness needs to be around to connect them to form a body what gives rise to the mind then? well the previous instant of mind - its a mental continuum without beginning and end the definition of this mental continuum is - luminous and cognizing the definition of matter is different - matter isn't luminous and cognizing so it can't give rise to a luminous and cognizing mind INTERLUDE: if you then think oh wait wait a second - the mental continuum the most subtle mental continuum is my self - yes I found it... nope wrong again (see the example of the mala above) back to the brainself - a corpse or simple matter can't produce a mind so how could the brain alone or in connection with other organs produce one? the sense of self is shown to be merely imputed on top of hte aggregates (form up to consciouness) there is no such self in reality neither one with the aggregates nor different from them lets talk about the aggregate of form (visual form) for a second: like we sit around a table you and me - I make a picture of the table and call it "Tisch" (I'm austrian so my mother tongue is german) you make a little snapshot of the table from another angle and call it a "table" now where is the real substantially existing table? in your head or in my head? are there two tables that are substantially existing? or just one? obviously there is just one thing there that we name a table (but is there really?) - but does me naming the table Tisch make your table less real for someone who doesn't speak english? what about a spanish guy coming along who doesn't speak german or english and says we are both wrong its a "mesa" (is that spanish for table? I don't remember) could it be that without labels or names and the process of naming and labeling phenomena - that there wouldn't be phnenomena out there? can we know the category of phenomena named "table" without the label? thats somethink to think about prasangika doesn't even accept that the aggregates are mere labels (or like the cittamatrins would say the aggregates are merely mind - they don't exist outside - they are just like dream phenomena) - madhyamika goes further and says they are completely unborn (from the point of view of their true nature - relatively speaking there seems to be birth or arising abiding and ceasing of phenomena - but as soon as you use madhyamika reasoning the whole thing becomes like space, completely beyond the conceptual elaboration - you can't make any claims about the true nature of reality - that there is a true nature or not for example - no category, label, concept works) so all phenomena contained withing the 5 aggregates (that means all of reality by the way, when buddhist say 5 aggregates they mean everything that arises) are unborn, unceasing neither one nor many - beyond all conceptual elaboration, the unity of the two truth and the great equanimity of samsara and nirvana (now we just went to nagarjuna country) if you are into Non duality btw. I dare say (thats my opinon) Prasangika madhyamika is the most radical teaching on non duality on planet earth - nagarjuna was waaaaay out there anyway in this and many other ways the aggregates themself are shown (if you use reasoning into the ultimate nature of reality, means prasangika Madhyamika reasoning) to be unborn, so they never came into being, they don't abide, so also they are unceasing thats the result of madhyamika analysis - that phenomena are completely free of conceptual elaboration, all phenomena means the basis of the sense of self (the aggregates) the sense of self nothing can withstand ultimate analysis and is shown to be the union of apperance/emptiness (that takes couple of days if you would study a madhyamika text with a lama) what does nagarjuna mean when he says Peace? he means all conceptual elaborations have been exhausted by meditating on emtpiness - so mind dies - wisdom shines

Just a quick reply for now: If you want to study more buddhist philosophy and psychology and can't read tibetan then nitharta is one of the best places to start Their publications are excellent - i would start with dudra (collected topics) then lorik (science of mind) followed by tarik(science of logical reasoning) and then start to study the tenet systems After that or while you're at it (but finish some dudra study) read books like the center of the sunlit sky by brunnhoelzel and then miphams commentary on shantarakshitas ornament of the middle way (thomas doctors translation) and top it with miphams beacon of certainty Why mipham for madhyamika why why? Because he builds you a bridge between madhyamika and dzogchen Btw I'm not finished with my studies at all many of the books i didnt start yet This is bow i would do it and how most buddhist philosophical institutions in the tibetan nyigma tradition would go about If you get a hang of pramana then george dreyfuss ‘recognizing reality’ is the book of choice (will split your head open), the book of pardue i dont know anyway Dreyfus is a powerhouse - I think the first western geshe dude knows!

I read this superficially so maybe I am wrong - but this is utter non sense! I follow a buddhist tradition that doesn't teach the jhanas - its still the buddhas path to enlightenment Who ever wrote this probably read 3 books on buddha dharma and through ‘divine intervention’ fully understood what lord buddha experienced...

the discussion seems to go into the direction of what is this self? or no self? (and can there be a thing that is the negation of another thing? thats a big madhyamika topic as well - can you talk about an actual truly existing absence of a thing?) like the statement there is the absence of an apple on this table anyway back to some lists: 1) the inborn (or innate or co-emergent) self and 2) the imputed self concerning 1) the inborn self, or inborn sense of self - this is something we carry with us since the beginning of beginningless samsara (whats that supposed to mean anyway?) - this sense of "I" and then from there this sense of "me and mine" is somewhat natural in the sense that we don't have to study certain philosophical tenet systems to get that sense of self (thats why it is labeled inborn, innate, coemergent - in tibetan of course its just one term "hlen skyed kyi dag") this inborn self is the root cause of all suffering and all karmic visions of the six realms of existence Birds have it, and all sorts of other beings as well. How do we know we have it? f.e.: through its expression, namely, hope and fear concerning 2) the imputed self. Now that is connected with philosophical views and tenets - f.e.: the so called eternalist or nihilists (strange translation - the tibetan term means something like: someone who holds the view of cessation) in the indo tibetan tradition they are usually termed tarka lnga or the five main non buddhist schools: Samkhya/Nayayika, Aishvara (followers of shiva), Jaina, Vinshanva, and the hedonists or nihilists (there is only one life, effects don't need a cause - let's party.... i.e.: rave culture, I tried that model of reality....didn't work too well) the first 4 are eternalist views - and they are of more interest here. the hedonists can't be helped in this thread... so these eternalist views basically boil down to an idea of a self that is singular, self sufficient (independent), and unchanging and then depending on the different schools the self is a tiny spot of light in the heart chakra, or is all pervasive and extends as far as space, is the creator of everything etc. etc. buddhists ask the question is this self you talk about one with or different from the five aggregates or not. if it is different from the five aggregates then it is basically not existent (like the baby of an unborn woman, or the horns of a rabbit - to use the traditional examples) because all knowable phenomena are contained within the five skandhas -> so it could not be known. such a self is useless so to speak and has no power to do anything, and there is also no thing that could alter or have any effect on it - its like space (in short it would not matter at all if you have such a self or not) if it's one of the five aggregates or two etc. or all of the five aggregates together then it is multiple (each of the aggregates has further subdivisions) and changing and dependently originated (the opposit of the above three statements: singular, independend, unchanging) - this we could say is in buddhist psychological terms a more healthy understanding of "self" thats of course not the last word on the matter... a little further investigation into the self: if we say the self is the aggregate of form then we can ask is it one or different from our teeth? we have to start somewhere so why not the teeth? If it is the same then we suddenly have 32 selfs, and loose a self every time we loose a tooth, if it is different then why do we complain about toothaches (in the old days people would commit suicide because of tooth aches right? that makes no sense if the self is different from our teeth) anyway to make things shorter - most buddhist systems would say the sense of self is mistaken a illusion (with a slight but important differene: the inborn self is arising like an illusion - the imputed self is an illusion, thats an important distinction!) also the self as a lable is not refuted: that means you can use terms such as I, Me and mine to talk to people and refer to yourself.... as long as you know you just go along with concensus reality most buddhist schools connect our sense of self mainly with the aggregate of conciousness (because the continuity of mind is a very fundamental experience - a lot happens but cognition of it always happens with it, except ordinary beings deep sleep state - but there is no subject or object duality so no need to worry about a self or no self or many selfs in one or whatever have you) I get tired so another big jump all the way up to madhyamika a big jump through alot of tenet systems that are important to understand before Madhyamika (its better to study the different buddhist schools because their insight into the true nature of reality gets deeper and more profound) basically madhyamika points out that this multiple, chaning, dependently originated inborn self (that is like an illusion, the imputed self is long refuted by now) has not even a basis - because the 5 aggregates are unborn and unceasing; neither one nor many.... good night from the himalayas

Well said forestofemptiness! That's madhyamika as well - all views are relative F.e.: The Buddha thought some brahmins to reach union with godhead in their language and symbolism (That I read in the middle length pali canon) He thought infinite vehicles and views, methods (our minds potential is infinite) Madhyamika philosophy for me is also very much about getting unstuck Showing how each attempt at explaining this moment can't produce an ultimate and valid philosophy of reality -------------------------- Also There are some interesting comments in this thread I want to pick up later One example is the discussion about Atman or anatman. This is very strongly connected with time/reincarnation and madhyamika thought... Central almost I would like to remind you on the example of the mala Now is there an ego or not? If there is no ego at all how do we work or interaktiv with day to day reality(no madhyamikan would negate day to day phenomena completely away)? If there is an ego that is truly(ultimately) established how is reality possible? Because if its truly ultimately established it can't have connection with anything (its alone), its permanent or unchanging If ego is truly established - reality as we actually experience it doesn't work anymore Yet ego also is arising in our experience or not? If not examined with ultimate analysis - it arises Time is arising with it And so is reincarnation That's all relative truth - and as I understand Buddhist madhyamika philosophy you can't just negate that away - that's an extreme view You cant say its actually there either - that's another extreme And so on through the tetralemma Great equanimity is then posited as the ground for the dreamlike accumulation of merit and wisdom to attain the twofold benefit (dharmakaya and the twofold rupakaya)

Hi my name is Matthias and I'm born in Austria 5 years ago I traveled to India the first time, I thought I will explore another culture and then go back to start university in Vienna, I met an old Dzochen Yogi in a small Himalayan town and realised that western Universities can't teach me anything I mostly live in India, in Tso Pema a little Himalayan town that is sacred to Hinduism, Buddhism and the Sikh Religion. Its close to the river Beas I have three lamas here who teach me Buddhist philosophy, psychology and tantric practices, I learned tibetan and speak and read the language. I also study some tibetan medicin with the doctor of the town. My Lab concists of tantric Buddhist practices, my studies focus on the Longchen Nyinghtik (heartessence of the vast expanse) terma circle revealed by the great Tertön Jigme Lingpa and texts connected to this circle, mostly by Dza Patrul Rinpoche and Ju Mipham Rinpoche I have alot of access and time with my lamas, and received many teachings on the Sutras, Tantras, Agamas and Dzocgen Upadesha Before I moved to India, I did almost 3 years of Gestalt Therapy and continue to study and apply western psychotherapy at the moment I read alot of Wilhelm Reich and neo reichian bodywork in general I also started to read more of Israel Regardie, Crowley, Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, Dr. Hyatt etc and start to see parallels between many aspects of the western occult and countercultural movements and the ancient science of Tantra - but also some big differences I also do alot of Pilgrimage in the Himalayas, so I know many of the special tantric tempels, Shakthi Peethas and overall powerplaces of the Himalayan Deity (for tantric buddhist most of hte Himalaya is the body mandala of Chackrasamvhara in Union with Vajrayogini, and Shiv/shakti for shivaites) - so if someone plans to visit India I'm happy to help them figure out what to see and where to go and how to get there I hope to learn more about the western tradidion here - escpacially spiritual Alchemy (which looks alot like Tantra to me) and hope to contribute in the fields of psychotherapy (reicha nd neo reichian work) as well as tantric studies hope to get started soon, love from the Himalayas M

reading about Ida and her views and realisations made me smile - thanks for that connection. I read "the mass psychology of fascism" by reich recently and I'm sure that as I read more of Ida (and that I want to do) I will find that she and reich are very similar beings and did similar work for society isn't Ida the name of one of the channels? Ida, Sushumna, Pingala no? those two discovered something very important but different from what the indian siddhas discovered and transmitted (maybe Ida was more on their gig then Willi was) I just say this much: no need for a partner in any of their practices and the desired goal is to be free of any sexual desire and desire in general so its not about 10h of sexual intercourse or malemultiorgasms etc. etc. thats modern neo tantra - nothing wrong with that in my opinion either, healthy sexuality is important (for the non siddha) anyway what the siddhas thought is about freedom from desire (attachment) - good ol' Buddhism after all

some more lists and definitions of terms: essence, nature and energy is one = non dual gnosis (its all in dharmakaya rigpa, so if we get that we got the essence of all yanas, practices, lineages, transmisions, deities, vows and samayas etc in one practice) essence is emptiness (the empty aspect of the nature of mind) nature is clarity (the appearances, what in sutra is called appearances is called luminosity, or clarity aspect of the nature of mind in Tantra) energy is infinite emanations of compassion (the energy that comes from seeing the union of appearance/emptiness is great compassion, natural and unobstructed) essence is dharmakaya nature is sambhogakaya energy is nirmanakaya the perfectly pure nadis are nirmanakaya (impure nadi is the body and what gives rise to the body) the perfectly pure prana is sambhogakaya (impure prana is the speech and what gives rise to speech) the perfectly pure bindu is dharmakaya (impure bindu is dualistic mind and what gives rise to mind) "all form are deity" how to purify forms into the nirmanakaya (basic view for this to work? form is emptiness) "all sounds are mantra" how to purify energies, vibrations, sounds into the sambhogakaya (sound is emptiness) "all minds are yeshe (nowness awareness)" how to purify all concepts into the dharmakaya (mind is emptiness) for me it all boils down to understanding appaerance/emptiness and that things are constantly happening is only possible because they are empty appearance dream like so its important to understand the union of appearance emptiness, if there is no appaerance you can't talk about emptiness at all, if there is no emptiness you can't talk about appearances at all so dreamlike appearances is the union of appearance/emptiness (there is not even an atom between those two)

i don't understand all of this - but it is very interessting information. From studying Buddhist scriptures I learned one thing - read one book many many times, also different commentators if possible, get teachings on the same topic from different masters. I feel that the 20 something years old Agrippa wrote just such a book I almost feel like Marty Mcfly "time" traveling into the basic structure of western thought thank you everybody escpecially ZhongDongDaoist and please continue this! .. pretty please

The utterly pure view is the union of appearance/emptiness Appearance meaning dependently originated phenomena Emptiness is the absence of a "core" you could say - their openness or space like nature That everything arises like a dream or illusion without "substance" Chackras are dream Energies are dream

Hey Jeff, Yes I love this stuff too - so much that I forget to practice the meaning I would say that my connection to a certain kind of lineage of transmission of teachings are karma - that's it I didn't really choose that lineage - I seem to bumb into lamas from a certain region who have a certain way of teaching dharma - many have the same root gurus even I also met westerners here in India that have those same connections - Its like a karmic family Regarding practice and what I practice or what I focus my studies on - that's mostly in my lamas hands Basically there is something called yang dagpai tawa or the utterly pure view That's what its about - to get that view Then meditation is possible and will really transform the mindstream I would say what my teachers try to make me understand is that essential view and that view is the same for different traditions or lineages of transmission (I think) - why dzogchen? I feel I have strong karma with this lineage and the other way around, I just go with that

Atisha said that except him and one of his Indian Masters no one in the budhdist world could tell the difference between the modern non buddhist schools and the buddhist schools anymore that was a loooooong time ago and atisha probably would outshine all of the modern day masters and of course us in terms of his practice and learning dzongsar khyentse rinpoche also said during a teaching that to tell the exact difference between hindu and buddhist doctrines (concerning the view of the ultimate) is almost impossible after shankaracharyas time so I will keep simply quiet and bow down either way and follow my tradition I do dare to answer the quesitona bout the relationship between Mahamudra,Dzogchen and Madhyamika Mahamudra is divided into two section - Sutra Mahamudra and Tantra Mahamudra, Sutra Mahamudra is basically the "how to do" Madhyamika on the cusion Tantra Mahamudra is a little more radical then that Dzogchen and Madhyamika have a little different relationship yes, but not soooooo different either Rangdzom and partly Longchenpa would draw a strong line between madhyamika and Dzogchen Mipham Rinpoche (who has the most followers among the Scholar Yogis of Dzogchen these days) changed the game a bit: basically his point is if you don't get Madhyamika forget about understanding Tantra or Dzogchen, they might be higher in their view or not - the techniques are faster and more advanced for sure but without grounding in the Madhyamika view one probably goes wrong or if not that has real good karma/faculties/faith why? the term Emptiness in the following list is always the meaning of Great Madhyamika (what that means I say shortly) the union of appearance/emptiness (Madyamika) the union of clarity/emptiness (Maha Yoga) the union of bliss/emptiness (Anu Yoga) the union of pristine awareness/emptiness (Ati Yoga) pristine awareness meaning rigpa (kind of) so all the emptiness aspect of those unions up there is the meaing of Maha Madhyamika - miphams point is, and rightly so, if you dont get the union of appearance/emptiness how could you possibly fully grasp Rigpa? and what rigpa means and is.. Maha Madhyamika means roughly (and this mainly a Nyigma presentation) that there are two levels of ultimate truth: one is the nominal Ultimate and one is the well.... not nominal ultimate (the ultimate ultimate ) the nominal ultimate is what you arrive at when you do analytical meditation into the nature of self of the person and phenomena - its not yet the real emptiness of persons and phenomena - its still part of mind by the way mind and nature of mind is more the sutric speak - in dzogchen speak you talk more about conciousness with aspects (rnam she) and nowness awareness (ye she) or the difference between the alaya and dharmakaya etc (why they have so many terms and classifications for basically the same thing is a mystery to me - but maybe you enjoy that stuff as much as I do?) Ok back to... the not nominal ultimate is only the object of meditation of an arya being (first Bhumi Bodhisattva) but for now getting a good grasp of the nominal ultimate is good enough to start doing tantric practice or dzogchen practice so modern scholar yogis of the Dzogchen lineage are in accord with mipham (the ones I know at least) and always seem to make the point that it is important to study madhyamika before entering the tantric arena... modern Yogis are in accord with ancient Yogis means - "direct introduction" and let them find out what just has happened there hope that made sense

Yes Tantra usually refers to a set of texts that are said to be transmitted in a divine way - mahasiddhas have contact with certain aspects of the enlighten mind or are directed to a place where they find tantric teachings hidden by great adepts, dakinis, or shiva himself (the shiva scriptures of vasugupta f.e.) the tibetan word for thos scriptures is gyü (rgyud) that means in this context continuum - and points to the fact that nowness awerness is already enlightened and has been since the beginningless beginning... or something like that for example you have the GyüLama (Sanskrit: UttaraTantra; English: the sublime Continuum) transmitted to Asanga in a serious of encounters he had with the next Buddha Meitreya while he was receiving teachings from him in the Buddhafield of Tushita I also feel that tantric procedures are magical in nature and inner alchemy - the only major difference is the motivation of Bodhicitta thats more or less the only thing that really distinguishes shaktism / shivaism and buddhist tantra (they even share many deities and rites and emblems, mantras etc) thats why I came here I felt I can learn more about the similarities of the western hermetic tradition and eastern tantra the focus on only this one tiny method (sexual yoga) out of almost infinite ways to discover that everything is divine is unfortunate yes and I reply a bit later to Zhongyongdaoist (I need some more chai first)- just for now, I do not think that the nyigma classification is the ultimate way of writing a list of buddhist vehicles, its one - and tibetan buddhists (escpecially the tibetans themselves, believe it or not) are incredibly in love with their lists, language, tradtition etc. I made some lamas laugh about that fact by telling them that from my time with tibetans I learned that the basic attitude of many tibetans(lamas included) seems to be something like: "we are the best human beings on this planet, and our religion is better then all others - we don't have to discuss this either, because its obviously true!" one favourit quote from the local tailor "all religions are good, but ours is just a bit better" or from one of my tibetan language tutors "you know why you have a cold? you speak too much english - if you would only speak tibetan you wouldn´t be sick so often" too funny those people I will defenitely check out the books you mentioned - thank you, I also found some introductory writings on the websites that Michael (Servus Michael ) shared.

Steve inspired me to Edit my post, When I start talking about Buddha Dharma (madhyamika specially) I can get in some sort of hysteria... I get so excited over those ideas that I forget that they are Ideas that resonate with me but not with everybody also Ideas can express wisdom, but wisdom and ideas are of course very different things. I go drink tea - that calms the hysteria down

I was at naina devi the local durga temple today for the special prasad and blessing (its great up on that mountain anyway - but yes today we walked into an almost physical wall of shakti before entering the temple gates - fire Puja every day... in all devi temples of India...imagine the energy right now) so yes Navrata is on in the Himalayas Full Power many tantric buddhists dont fully understand the connections but some do, Keith Dowman, James Low and some of the first tradition of westerners here - its a rather rare phenomena that there is this kind of relationship - I have friends who practice Hindu Tantra, some even adopted buddhist tantric rituals and have also lamas guiding them it is very very similar path, just some differences (bodhicitta mainly) but many temples in nepal are simply tantric (buddhist/hindu) so you would find a stupa on top of the base for a shiva lingam, so there you meet buddhists and hindus anyway (many of those old beautiful newari temples the earthquake destroyed - my favourit place in nepal Sankhu is gone like it never existed) (Gendun Chöpel wrote about the powerplaces of the himalaya... I dont know if its translated... but many shiva/shakti places correspond with dakini places, chackrasamvhara and vajrayogini places) the himalaya is vajrayoginis body mandala basically (or shiv/shaktis as you like) - its one huge tantric deity

Yes its good to talk about time, because its seems so natural to most people (including me) - I rarely question time I never read much of Eckhart Tolle, but still from the Buddhist point of view (the Madhyamika point of view) his statement is true but not for 100% because time is relatively appearing, dreamlike but appearing - and so is reincarnation also the idea of tomorrow is very workable, it makes alot of sense to have that concept. Reincarnation is workable in the same way (even if most beings don't remember past lives or see future lives, but then who knows how tomorrows tea will taste, I mean have the direct experience of tomorrows tea already now? or who can really recall for example what exactly they thought 5 minutes before they read this?) the continuity of concisousness is relatively true - like a dream is true or a mirage is true and also: as the buddha is unborn, how could the buddha cease (be extinct?) like the awakened one said: "my dreamlike form appeared to dreamlike beings to show them the dreamlike path to lead to dreamlike nirvana" or shantideva: (I quote the meaning not the exact words of the translation) "the bodhisattva is allowed only one illusion, namely that there is a result to the path" I have by the way no idea what all of this means but those indo tibetan teachings sure sound great to me

thank you all for your input. Maybe you could also help me find a starting point for my studies of alchemy? a text you recommend a commentary to a text, an essay, book? Again with an emphasis on alchemical psychology or spiritual transmutation ( I got Jungs "Secrets of the golden flower" thats not a western source text but I think still very interessting read) Sorry I dont get the quoting thing - I'll figure it out later... anyway @Zhongdongdaoist I read some of Eric Bernes books, I liked them very much also. and my understanding of pre Buddhist Tantra or the origins of tantra are somewhat different (I think). I met Bettina Bäumler a scholar of Kashmir Shivaism and indian Tantra and its history some years ago, we were waiting in line to meet H.H. Karmapa. she told me her research of Tantra showed that there was Tantra as an own movement for a very long time before it became Hindu or Buddhist. She also told me how many siddhas seem to appear in both lineages. Two examples: Goraknath the great siddha and origin of the Nath tradition of Shivaism is also one of the 84 buddhist mahasiddhas of India. On the otherhand also Tilopa the origin of the Tibetan Buddhist Kagyu Lineages seems to be part of the Hindu lineage of Tantra Now Shingon I always thought of as the Japanese interpretation of Indian Tantric Buddhism. I also remember reading that Shingon only uses the outer Tantras (mostly connected with outer and inner rites of purification) what means outer tantras? the Nyigma tradtition (that I am most fimiliar with) talks about 9 Yanas Shravaka-, Prathyekabuddha- and Bodhisattvayana (those three are the Sutrayana or path of the Sutras) the three outer tantras: Kriyatantra, Upatantra, Yogatantra the three inner tantras: Mahayoga, Anuyoga, Atiyoga (those six make up the Tantryana or path of tantra) now as far as I know shingon only holds the lineages for the outer tantras - hence no sexual yogas (those are part of the Anuyoga system - just a very small part)

Servus, I'm usually pretty busy when I'm here so I can't be a tour guide, but maybe we just find out what she is looking for and I ask myself and ask around to see where to start. One rule of thumb for India is - don't buy a return ticket U never know where you end up Another thing is - unfortunately its a patriarchal country and we blessed it on top of that with pornography So many western women have a hard time here. Especially when travelling alone But then there is also Nepal&Thailand Those places are more western women friendly Can you be more specific about what she might be looking for - also why you think she needs such a timeout? That's interesting to me Love M

Dear All, the little essay by nungali in this thread brought me to the forum, I really enjoyed reading it alot! I probably read it again soon - in some ways this is what is fascinating me at the moment and what I research. I'm living in India and practice/study tantric Buddhism - I learned the rather strange tibetan language to communicate with my teachers directly (was their idea and I'm happy I went through the pain of getting fluent in tibetan - opens many doors inside and outside of the vajra world) I also did 3 years of Gestalt therapy before coming to india and staying here to learn and experiment (Build my LAB or mandala..either way) I also do reichian Bodywork since maybe one and a half years... both systems are very transformative and blend perfectly with the indo-tibetan buddhist system I do have a question to you guys, I started reading some western adepts like Crowley and Regardie - I have to admit regardie resonates more with me at the moment, I need to learn Crowleyan language first probably (Do I want that? Do I?) In short - which books or essays would you recommend to go a bit deeper into western alchemy (I'm not interested in tinctures and herb extracts, but psychological and spiritual alchemy) I'm reading Regardies Pholosopher Stone at the moment - and don't understand too much (I have an idea about Kabbalah, in the sense that it exists and there are points with names and lines connecting the points.....not enough ALAS!) any web libraries? I feel that reichian bodywork, Jungs Ideas, Alchemy and eastern Tantra work superbly together and much more research and experiment should be done there - or maybe is done allready, without me knowing it..... when i say eastern Tantra I mean not the prolonged orgasm - blue balls neo tantra version of it...that might have some benefits too but not what I talk about - I mean the traditional aspect found in shivaism and shaktism as well as in the tibetan tradition. Neo Tantra borrowed alot from Reich - escpecially Oshoji like nungali pointed out, but in many ways its not the only thing reich intended or what Reichian Bodyworkers intend with their work. the orgasms and the sex gets better but that A byproduct of spiritual/psychological work and transformation - I feel that some of the Neo Tantra people emphasize Sex a bit too much, there is much more to tantra then that (recognizing the divine nature of all Dharmas/phenomena for example thanks for this forum m