Creation

I am in not position to judge what level he or his senior students are at, or how his material compares to indoor teachings of highly accomplished masters. That said, I appreciate the organization of his material - breaking nei gong down into component skills, and selecting the most efficient sets he found in China to train the different skills (all with a small number of movements). As well as his emphasis on feeling rather than visualization and never tensing or forcing. Seems safer and more thorough, as well as more effective, than the vast majority of qigong widely available to Westerners. I have personally got a lot out of his Dragon and Tiger and God's Playing in the Clouds sets.

One can find some justification of this in the doctrine of Buddha-nature, and it is often taught this way to Westerners who are uncomfortable with connecting to external deities. I personally think this is an incomplete picture of things. Certainly most Tibetans think there is actual connecting to deities.

There are rituals to invoke the blessing of deities (lower tantra) and rituals to become the deity (higher tantra), involving mantra, visualization, ritual items, etc. The specifics depend on the particular practice, but they typically share a common structure. Initiation is what allows something mind-based like visualization to actually connect to the deity.

There are a number of features often found in paths that are considered Tantric. -Emphasis on initiation -Emphasis on the integration of the physical and worldly existence with the highest spiritual transcendence (rather than their opposition) -Lifting of taboos on sex, violence, and intoxication common to exoteric religions/spiritual paths -Deliberate use of sex, violence, and/or intoxication in spiritual practices -Practices involving manipulation of subtle body phenomena, and practices using the physical body used for spiritual aims (e.g. khecari mudra, mahabandha/vase breath, yoga asanas) -Microcosm-macrocosm principle: correspondence between the inner experience of the subtle body and the external universe Not every path that has identified as Tantric carries all of these features, and non-Tantric paths might have one or more of them. But typically the more of these are present in a tradition the more likely it is to self-identify as Tantric. So there is dualistic Shaiva tantra, non-dualistic Shaiva tantra, Vaishnava tantra, Mahayana Buddhist tantra. They all have their own internal reasons for making the shift to the Tantric mode of practice. For instance, in Buddhism, many think the later forms of Buddhist tantra were influenced by non-dual Shaiva tantra, but the earliest forms developed for reasons completely internal to Mahayana Buddhism. In Mahayana, a Buddha doesn't just have an enlightened mind, but an enlightened body (nirmanakaya), and sees samsara and nirvana as non-dual and all phenomena as primordially pure. So this is already proto-tantric. But in ordinary Mahayana, the only way to get to that point is innumerable lifetimes of renouncing the world and engaging in deep meditative absorption and good deeds. Whereas In the earliest fully tantric form of Buddhism (Yoga Tantra, technically), there came the idea that one can receive an initiation into the mandala of a deity that allows one to do this in a single lifetime. So here we have initiation, integration spiritual transcendence with worldly existence, slight lifting of the taboo on violence (there was a peaceful mandala and a wrathful mandala) and a macrocosm-microcosm principle, but no sexual, subtle body, or physical body practices. Naturally, there were groups who explored sexuality within this context and that led to the next phase of Buddhist tantra, involving consort practice. As freeform noted, non-Indic tradition that has the most similarity to Tantra is Daoism. As for the specific question about Guru Yoga being Tantra, since in Tibetan Buddhism initiation is given to make this connection, and the connection gives information on how to integrate the body and mundane existence on the spiritual path resulting in both an enlightened mind and enlightened body, it is definitely Tantra. Guru Yoga and Deity Yoga are considered the characteristic practices of Tantric Buddhism in Tibet. Also, Dzogchen is a form of Tantra; it positions itself as the highest form of tantra. When it claims to be beyond tantra, it specifically means beyond lower forms of tantra. Does that theoretical explanation find congruence with your experience?

I would be curious to know if this is combined in you practice with generation stage/illusory body yoga for you, or is practiced strictly as a manipulation of the drops. I get the impression that different tantras do things differently, but I don't know any details.

Thanks for these, they are very appropriate for me at the moment. Also, hello, it's nice to see you around.

Hi Mr. Pilgrim, I'm answering from book knowledge here but it struck me how your realization that there is no such thing as doing the dishes because it is dependent on innumerable causes and conditions is precisely what Buddhists call the "emptiness" of doing the dishes, and in fact, realizing the emptiness of all things is the primary goal of all Buddhist practices, including tummo. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhism actually teach that the animating principle underlying ordinary things is empty in the same way that ordinary things are.

Very good. I read somewhere, but can't dig up the reference, about a definitive dating of the period Tantra becoming popular in Indian Buddhism coming from a mention of "some (few) practicing the way of mantra" in one of Santideva's works, and the Chinese pilgrim Yijing reporting that the way of mantras had become very popular in India. So that puts the explosion of tantra's popularity in mid 7th century. Another interesting thing I read (where in the world was I reading this stuff?) is a scholar of Chinese Buddhism discovered the earliest known mention something resembling deity yoga in a Buddhist context in an apocryphal Chinese Buddhist sutra that actually plagiarized a Daoist scripture (n.b. both groups appropriated and reworked each other's scriptures). The Daoist scripture instructed to visualize one's self as a Celestial Official when performing an exorcism rite, and the Buddhist copy changed this to visualizing one's self as a Buddha with the 32 major and minor marks. At any rate, one key to making sense of Buddhist tantra is that it is structured like a system of ceremonial magic, in which visualizing one's self as a deity is a way to attain magical power. This is not just practiced in Hindu and Buddhist tantra, but also in Western ceremonial magic and Daoist magic. That Buddhahood is the supreme power ("Siddhi") is the foundation for Tantra being an independent vehicle of Mahayana. Now, as Weinberger's thesis on Yoga Tantra and the Tattvasamgraha Tantra explains, Tantra as an independent vehicle of Mahayana separate from the Paramitayana did not exist prior to the central Yoga Tantra, the Sarvatathagata-Tattvasamgraha. This text introduced empowerment and deity yoga as a complete path to Buddhahood, complete with a tantric reworking of Shakyamuni's enlightenment under the Bodhi tree (which I mention in a previous post), and a five-family mandala of peaceful deities and a five-family mandala of wrathful deities (prefiguring the Guhyagarbha/Shitro mandala). These wrathful deities are not Herukas (which presumably were a import from Shaivism) but "Wisdom Kings". As for tantras "lower" than Yoga Tantra, texts that were later classified as Kriya tantra were precisely those late Mahayana sutras that were manuals for magical rituals invoking Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and the only Carya tantra is the Mahavairocana tantra, which was like a bridge between these sutras and the full fledged "Vajrayana" of the Tattvasamgraha Tantra. Now, a Chinese transmission of Yoga tantra has the Tattvasamgraha Tantra as the central tantra of a cycle of tantras which include the Guhyasamaja, which is the first tantra to introduce sexual ritual and the concept of the completion stage practiced after the generation stage (which was initially synonymous with the sexual ritual, i.e. no tummo yet). Note the deity Guhyasamaja is not a Heruka. So the Guhaysamaja is the bridge between Yoga tantra and the Mahayoga and Yogini tantras, which center around Herukas and sexual/energetic practices in the completion stage. These are the tantras that were definitely influenced by Shaivism, but there is not any evidence that I have seen that the Tattvasamgraha (and maybe the Guhyasamaja) was anything other than an internal development of Mahayana. And in the spirit of sharing thought provoking articles: "Proto-Tantric Elements in The Gandavyuha sutra" http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MAG/mag204407.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Right, that's the one thing I said they disagree on. It's the rest of the Yogacara teachings that are not incompatible with Madhyamaka. For instance, a Madhyamika can use the eight consciousness model, just not claim that the alaya-vijnana exists ultimately. As for tantra, that is a tricky issue because the tantras seem to admit true existence of Buddha-jnana, but commentators such as Tsongkhapa who are committed to Madhayamaka are very careful to not to do so in their exegesis. Speaking of Tsongkhapa, he went as far as to say the ultimate Prasangika system does not admit the use of any Yogacara concepts such as alaya-vijnana, but others (Mipham for instance) do not agree. Actually, the Lanka says first you meditate on mind only, then you let go of the existence of mind. Two tiered system was formalized as Yogacara-Madhyamaka by Shantarakshita and Kamalashila, who were the first Indian Panditas to teach in Tibet.

There are a few different ways that Yogacarin authors relate alaya-vijnana and Buddha-jnana. 1. Alaya-vijnana is the same as pure Buddha-jnana, manas is what contains all the defilement, destruction of manas is buddhahood 2. Alaya-vijnana contains both pure and impure seeds, when only pure seeds remain you are a Buddha 3. Alaya-vijnana is completely defiled, and Buddha-jnana is the pure mind underlying it. Paramartha called this underlying pure mind amala-vijnana, in Mahamudra, Lamdre, and Dzogchen Semde (which were imported from India) it is called kungzhi (alaya-vijnana being kungzhi-namshe). (There is a pattern here, and the next step would be to say kungzhi actually has a pure part and an impure part. This is basically the step that Dzogche Mennagde takes with "One basis, two paths", they separate kungzhi and gzhi. But this was not done by Yogacarins in India) So in 1, alaya-vijnana is tathagatagarbha in the sense that it is the Buddha-jnana already being present underneath the defiled consciousness, in 2 alaya-vijnana is tathagatagarbha in the sense that it contains the potential to become Buddha-jnana, and in 3 alaya-vijnana is not tathagatagarbha, but amala-vijnana/kungzhi is. That's my understanding at least...

Whoever revealed the Mahyana sutras were definitely advanced Bodhisattvas, so is it not possible that they connected with Buddhas? If you look into channeled material, it is clear that some of the information comes from more advanced beings than others, and the more advanced the consciousness of the channel the more advanced of a being they can connect to. So there is a similarity. Right. For Westerner scholars who don't grant the possibility of revelation, saying most Mahayana sutras can't date to the time of the Buddha is tantamount to saying someone just made it up and called it Buddhavacana. But if you allow revelation, you can accept the findings of text criticism without negating the Mahayana as Buddhavacana. I will, however, say that Vajrayana, the basis of which is deity yoga, definitely was substantially new practice when it was introduced. So you find the tantras reworking Shakyamuni's enlightenment narrative to justify the new practice: in lower tantra the new narrative is Shakyamuni receiving abhisheka and chanting a mantra under the Bodhi tree, and of course there is the even more radical reworking of the narrative in Higher Tantra with the milk maid. But it was an outgrowth of things that developed in late Mahayana sutras, for instance in the Gandavyuha Sutra you have, IIRC, Vairocana grants Suddhana to see things with as he sees them, and Vasumitra the prostitute enlightening her customers through union. So I guess I would say it is a formalization or systematization of things that had been developing in Maahyana for some centuries prior.

About Madhyamaka and Yogacara, briefly: Yogacara, being the school of Yoga practitioners, introduces something like Abhidharma for the Mahayana: detailed maps of explaining how one goes from a sentient being all the way to Buddhahood. So eight consciousnesses on one side and five wisdoms and three kayas on the other, and how the former become the latter across the Bhumis. None of this is present in Madhyamaka, and all of it is compatible with Madhyamaka: it can be viewed as a sort of addendum. The place where they conflict is Yogacara claimed the interpretation emptiness espoused by Madhyamaka was too nihilistic, basically that you had to leave something un-negated to not be nihilism. Madhyamaka says even non-dual conciousness is empty like everything else, Yogacara says it is not empty in the same way as defilement are, but is like the ocean and defilement are like waves on the ocean. In Chinese Buddhism, almost everyone was Yogacarin. The only Madhyamikas were early Tiantai, Sanlun (which only lasted a couple centuries before dying out), and maybe one or two subschools of Chan mentioned by Zongmi which have not survived to the present day.

Most Mahayana Sutras could not have been taught by the physical historical Buddha due to the content of the texts themselves. Granting that visionary encounters and teachings in other realms are possible (as most in this thread would grant, I think), it makes much more sense to see the Mahayana sutras are accounts of such. For instance, if Maitreya, Avalokiteshvara, or Manjurshri is present as interlocutor, or there are lengthy descriptions of the appearances of celestial mansions and details of the ornaments of all the Bodhisttvas present. There is just no way these things were orally transmitted records of teachings in the physical realm like the Pali sutras. If it was, some Pali text somewhere would have mentioned these other teachings, at least in passing. To add to this, Mahayana sutras sometimes speak about the merit of possessing a written copy of the sutra, which of course makes no sense if they were originally transmitted by oral recitation. Similarly for Vajrayana Tantras. I see Mahayana Buddhism as a religion of continuing revelation, from the Sutras to Dzogchen termas.

It is interesting and deserves to be more widely known that there were Western systems of spiritual gymnastics, but just because there were British and Swedish systems of exercises with postures identical to modern yoga poses does not mean Indians derived their yoga poses from such. Really, that's just unfair to native Indian traditions. The main scholar whose name is associated with this kind of research is Mark Singleton, and a lot of people think he claims that Yoga poses have Western origin, but he actually doesn't. He merely points out certain historical connections and similarities. For instance, an Indian Yoga teacher criticized him for seeming to claim this, and he replies at length to give a more nuanced view of his research: https://grimmly2007.blogspot.com/2010/09/response-to-yoga-gymnastique.html Much of what is passed off as the history of Yoga posture practice today is completely false, such as the connection between modern posture practice and Patanjali, but completely denying the Indian origin of modern Yoga is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you look at the complete teachings of Krishnamacharya, the "Father of Modern Yoga", on bandha, pranayama, and chanting, you would see that he is teaching something very Indian and in line with Medieval Hatha Yoga scriptures, just with the parts he deemed inappropriate for modern householders cut out. As for the Theosophical Society, they promoted the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, not Hatha Yoga, which was taboo in the period in question.

This is false. India has native dance, acrobatics/gymnastics, and martial arts traditions that have been doing this stuff forever. That's probably where the first Hatha Yogis got most of their postures from. What is recent is the promotion of the postures as an intrinsically spiritual form of physical culture appropriate for Hindu householders, and from there of course to spiritually minded Westerners. Hey, This is a huge topic, but in short a common history is extremely unlikely, although there was some mutual influence (e.g. Shaolin). The conception of the subtle body informing their practices is just too different. The Chinese system is based on the five phases associated to organs and acupuncture meridians and the three treasures of jing, chi, and shen. The Indian system is based on the left, right, and central channels, and the concept of bindu (inner sun and inner moon). Certain systems of qigong practice like the eight brocades and five animal frolics, which are unlike any Indian system of movements, just don't make any sense outside of the 5 phases and associated meridians. Similarly, many yoga postures just look like contortionism until you understand the logic of how sequencing them combining them with breath retention works to bring prana into the central channel and move bindu around. For some extreme examples that weren't practiced in any non-Indian spiritual system, see mulabandhasana, kandasana, and yoganidrasana. Even to the extent that similarly intense postures they were practiced in China (e.g. Shaolin) they were used as physical conditioning.

I would like to propose some things to keep in mind about these debates. Monistic Hinduism (Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism) and Buddhism differ from every other spiritual path (including Dharmic ones like Samkya/Yoga) in that they propose the highest form spiritual attainment is not a state such as Union with God or Nirvikalpa Samadhi, but a realization of the nature of all states and experiences. Be it "All is Brahman" or "All is not-self, impermanent, unsatisfactory", or "All is primordially pure" or "All is consciousness" or "All is Shiva". This is a huge point of commonality that often gets pushed aside in debates. The debate, then, when boiled down to it's most absolute essential point, is between an understanding of the ultimate realization as seeing the substratum of all experience (whether called Brahman or Non-Dual Awareness), or seeing that experiences (no matter how subtle, e.g. consciousness) have no substratum. When put this way, you can see why people may insist that these are actually different realizations. But the other salient point that gets pushed aside the Buddhism-Advaita debates I have seen, is that this debate is also internal to Buddhism. Certain sects of Buddhism taught that the "no substratum view" was nihilism, and emptiness of self only refers to conditioned phenomena, not the non-dual consciousness that is the foundation of all experience. So for some schools of Buddhism, Buddhism and Advaita are in fact saying the same thing about the ultimate (though details of teaching on the conventional differ); it is then not "Buddhism vs. Advaita" but "Some schools of Buddhism vs. Advaita and the other schools of Buddhism". Now, about the substratum vs no-substratum debate: Here you are espousing what I am calling a substratum view, and so as I explained, you will find Advaita and Buddhism to be basically saying the same thing. But consider this: Dwai can correct me if I'm wrong, but in Vedanta conceiving of Atman as space is not correct understanding. The fundamental qualities of the Atman are Sat, Chit, and Ananda. Particularly, Chit means the pure subjectivity, the pure knowingness that is always present in all experience. Space is something known by awareness, so it is not the Self. As one contemporary Non-Duality teacher that I like explains, Awareness is not what things occur in, it's what things occur too. Now, circling around to Buddhism, the Buddha taught that there are four levels of absorption without form: Infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, and neither perception nor non-perception, and for those who have glimpsed Nirvana, there is an even higher level called the cessation of feeling and perception. At each level you let go of what previously seemed like an un-negatable infiniteness. So letting go of infinite space, you realize that actually that was negatable after all, because infinite consciousness without a sense of space is behind that. This is related to the distinction I made above. I won't claim to understand about the import of the levels beyond that, except to say that it makes you wonder if the things people insist are absolutely un-negatable are in fact so. It is even said that Nisargadatta Maharaj began speaking of "Nothingness" toward the end of his life, Shri Atmananada in one of his last works said "In the end, there isn't even consciousness". Now, to this humble sadhaka who has absolutely no realization, the lesson here is just "keep your mind open, don't fixate on any view". Which, of course, also means not focusing on emptiness as a view.

Hello! Very interesting points you bring up. Here are some thoughts that come up for me. Buddhist practice started utilizing deities in the early days of Mahayana. The idea was that having direct contact with a Buddha or high level Bodhisattva would plant a pure seed in your mind that would germinate in enlightenment. So one would, say, meditate on Amitabha Buddha single minded for several days, and have a vision in which one would meet Amitabha face to face, and have this pure seed planted in your mind. In the later days of Mahayana in India, they developed a technology of empowerment, where a qualified guru could connect you to such a deity directly. These empowerment were connected to ideas like secrecy vows, offering rituals (ganapuja), and protector spirits. It is my speculation that these elements somehow make the technology of empowerment possible. It is this late-stage teaching that was passed into Tibet. It was a mistake of Protestant influenced Western scholars to think that Tibetan Buddhsim's abundance of rituals and deities was necessarily due to syncretism with the local shamanic religion (indeed called Bon, but shamanic Bon is not the same as the Yungdrung Bon that Steve mentioned). Of course, syncretism did occur, but it was in the secondary practices such as smoke offerings, prayer flags, various protector beings, etc., rather than the primary practices of creation and completion stage tantra, which were Indian in origin. In any case the idea was the same: contact with an enlightened being translates to you attaining enlightenment faster. The idea that deity work is somehow different than "pure" Buddhism is rather Protestant. Actually, even in the Pali Suttas the Buddha instructs a layman to practice remembering the Buddha and various classes of Devas as an appropriate practice for a layman. The big question is, is whatever these empowerments connected you to something enlightened? You have to be careful anymore, as the Shugden affair shows. Best regards.

Ah, excellent! I am very happy to see these connections being explored. OK, a couple of things. On the Buddhist side, I think it is important to remember is that all the original practitioners of Longde and Menngagde were working in the milieu of the early Nyingma trinity of Mahayoga, Anuyoga, and Semde. If they brought in other practices from other traditions, they used them in the context of doing what the above trinity purports to do. First of all, being Buddhist, they place primary importance on realizing the nature of mind. Second, they are working in the Tantric paradigm of using yogas of drops and channels and working with intermediate states like dying and dreaming. Even if Thogal methods turn out to be borrowed from Taoism, they were totally recontextualized by the Buddhist tantric milleu. Just like if it turns out that Buddhists borrowed deity yoga and/or tummo from a non-Buddhist source, their particular way of using it and contextualizing it's use is still fundamentally Buddhist. Some are inclined to say if they are doing the same technique, how they contextualize it is just dogmatic dross, but I think this a rash judgement. Also, let's not forget that many Mahasiddhas were said to to achieve rainbow body practicing Yogini Tantras, so it's not like within the world of Buddhism only Longde and Menngagde practitioners were attaining rainbow body. On the Taoist side, first of all I was going to mention Baolin Wu but Wells beat me to it. In his Nine Palaces book he gives an eyewitness account of his (Taoist!) master attaining not just rainbow body, but rainbow body of great transference. Second, I want to suggest the possibility that there are fundamentally different paradigms of internal alchemy in the history of Taoism, that maybe even lead to different kinds of light body attainment. The paradigm that is dominant from, say, the 12th century onward comes from the Zhong-Lu lineage of alchemy, and talks about converting jing to qi to shen to wu. I do not get the impression that this type of alchemy is particularly similar to Dzogchen, which explains why not too many people have looked into the connection before. But if indeed earlier methods, such as Mao Shan methods, are fundamentally different, not using this linear progression from jing to wu, that is a better place to look. I think things like seeing light in the upper dan tian are simply too universal to be indicative of a fundamental similarity, sort of like how I frown on the idea some people have that any time energy moving up the spine is mentioned it is "kundalini". I don't even think that rainbow body is the same as the diamond body mentioned in Luk's "Taoist Yoga". The more different accounts of practices and meditative experiences one is familiar with, one can say "practice x is more similar to practice y than practice z is", and get a sense of the geography of the terrain. Another point is There is also a tradition of treasure revaluation in Taoism, with stories of magical scrolls things like alchemical instructions dropping from the sky, etc. I read something on google books years ago showing similar Tibetan and Chinese accounts, but I can't find it now. It probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, to remind myself if nothing else. It's far more important that one actually practices and attains than knows the scholarly details.

Greetings everyone, In honor of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's upcoming retreat on the pranayamas of Yantra Yoga, I want to say something about this marvelous system, which has benefited me a great deal. In contrast to Indian Yoga, where there is an abundance of information on postures and pranayama exercises available, Tibetan pranayama exercises are not given out to the general public, and to a large extent even the systems of systems of yoga postures are secret. One of the exceptions to this secrecy is Yantra Yoga taught by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Yantra Yoga is a Sanskritization of Trul Khor, a "yantra" being a series of movements linked with breathing. In the practice, movement is done on inhales and exhales, and breath retention is done holding a posture. Those who have researched Tibetan breathing practices such as tummo have probably seen that they use a type of breath retention called vase breath. But what exactly is vase breath - how does one do it? Getting clarity on this is not easy. This is where Yantra Yoga comes in: in Yantra a proper vase breath is divided into four steps: open hold, directed hold, closed hold, and contracted hold, which in turn are done on the basis of correct inhalation and exhalation. The mechanics of the movements and poses make your body do these elements correctly (provided you are doing practice with awareness). So you get a very precise felt sensation of what a proper quick inhale, slow inhale, quick exhale, slow exhale, open hold, directed hold, closed hold, contracted hold, and empty hold feel like. You then take this knowledge and apply it to your pranayama practice, so there is no doubt that you are doing it correctly. Brilliant! Different holds are trained by different yoga postures. Backbends such as cobra, locust and bow train open hold; twists train directed hold; inversions such as sholderstand and headstand are poses that train closed hold; and downward dog, fish, and frog are poses that train contracted hold (I am using the standard Hatha Yoga names for the poses here, although they are often similar or the same in the Tibetan system). There is more to the system than that such as various preliminary and closing exercises, but training the different holds using postures is the gist of it. There are many books and DVDs available to learn the system. In my case, I went to yoga classes in my area with good lineage (Iyengar and Ashtanga) in order to learn the poses correctly, and then learned the Yantra Yoga way of linking the poses together with breath from the books and DVDs. So that is the physical aspect of the system. It is very good even if you are just interested in Hatha Yoga because you understand what correct breathing is like, rather than just correct physical alignment, and this plus the dynamics of the different holds opens up a deeper understanding of subtle inner alignments. A lot of things about yoga postures make a lot more sense to me having studied this. Now, about pranayama. There are two preliminary pranayamas which are forms of alternate nostril breathing, and then five main pranayamas of which use vase breath in a major way. The first two of these are more physical and the last three incorporate visualizations of channels and chakras. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu is going to be teaching these pranayamas in his next retreat which will be webcasted (!) for free (!!). He typically spends one or two session of every retreat teaching about Dzogchen generally, and then teaches the practices specific to that retreat, with one session at some point explaining and then giving direct introduction (!!!). These pranayamas are not associated with the cycle of a deity like other Tibetan tsa lung systems, but are directly related with Dzogchen. So if you get the direct introduction and oral explanation, you have permission to practice. And he doesn't teach these particular practices very often. What's more, the books that serve as references for the practices he teaches are only available to members of his organization, the one exception being the book on the complete system of Yantra Yoga, which is publicly available. http://www.amazon.com/Yantra-Yoga-Tibetan-Movement/dp/1559393084/ In other words, this retreat, in addition to the publicly available book, is giving unprecedented access to authentic Tibetan pranayamas connected with Dzogchen. The retreat will be June 3-7, from Tenerife, Spain. The official schedule is not up yet, but typically the session are two hours each, with a 10 am morning session and an afternoon session starting a 3 or 4 pm. http://melong.com/events_listing/spain-tenerife-dzamling-gar-june-3-7-2016/ http://webcast.dzogchen.net/

For those interested, the schedule for the retreat is finalized. Times are Tenerife time, GMT+1. http://webcast.dzogchen.net/

Hello! One place where non-sectarian kriyabans are hanging out is the ""Other Systems" subforum of AYP. You can get straight talk about kriya there. http://www.aypsite.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=29 For instance, here is one highly knowledgeable kriyaban's breakdown of the main differences in the lineages and the different teachers of each lineage: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16041#136883 You can then run a search for each name mentioned there, etc. It is truly a wonderful lineage! I can't say enough good things. Yes, there is the shroud of "mystery and shenanigans", but that shroud is lifting due to the efforts of people like this and their willingness to share online. Ennio Nimis deserves special mention in this regard. And in a very recent development, an actual Kriya Guru is sharing more openly as well: http://originalkriya.com/

Thanks for that article. Here are a few thoughts on the ideas you mention. First of all, about the gulf between Pali Buddhism and the Vajrayana of the Siddhas: When seen as an incremental transformation over centuries it does not seem seem so shocking: Early Buddhism -> Abhidharma Buddhism -> Early Mahayana (three vehicles, prajnaparamita) -> Late Mahayana (one vehicle, tathagatagarbha) -> Early Tantra (deity yoga as the fast path to Buddhahood) -> Late Tantra (chakra-bindu work, violent/sexual iconography). Sanderson only proves Shaiva influence on late Buddhist tantra. The jump from late Mahayana to early tantra is actually not all that big and arguably completely internal to Buddhism. And early tantra, which was did not have explicit mention of chakra-nadi-bindu is what was taught in China anyway. Another point I would like to make is that even though detailed descriptions of energy work as we understand it are not in the written record until the late tantric phase of Indian Buddhism, I think it is quite inappropriate to say Buddhist energy work = chakra-nadi-bindu methods of late Budhhist tantra. I'm guessing this comes from academics who don't know that much about energy work. Because it is inconceivable that people going into deep dhyana states using the breath, as taught by the historical Buddha, did not have a great deal of energy body development. Here is a particularly extreme example: both Indian and Chinese internal alchemy traditions prize the breathless state as a landmark of one's level of development: where the physical breath ceases and the body is breathing prana/qi directly. But the in the Pali Canon the Buddha specifically characterized the fourth dhyana by the absence of breathing, centuries before there was any record of internal alchemy traditions. The way I have come to think about it is that something analogous to "dual cultivation of xing and ming" is actually present in Buddhism: in early Buddhism it is dual cultivation of shamatha and vipashyana (shamatha leading to the aforementioned fourth dhyana, vipashyana to knowing the true nature of things), in Mahayana this is expanded to the perfection of wisdom and the other five or nine perfections (which result in the attainment of the dharmakaya and rupakaya respectively) and in late tantra the creation and completion stages or illusory body and clear light yogas (which again work together to cultivate dhamakaya and rupakaya). Hopefully my parenthetical remarks make it clear why I am making this analogy. However, in Chan the two types of practice are not emphasized, and this became the dominant mode of practice in China after the 10th(?) century, so it makes sense that Daoists would say "Chan doesn't have both"

Thanissaro Bhikkhu aka Ajahn Geoff [edit: didn't see you already knew about him]

For anyone with sensitivity to spiritual realms, this is an absolutely crucial question to ask. A lot of this thread has been taken up by discussing yidams in Buddhist Higher Tantra. Most discussions of deity yoga and the view of emptiness in relation to contact with spiritual beings that I have seen are misguided in my opinion. First of all, if you are sick, does conceptually accepting that everything is an illusion negate the need for medicine? If someone comes up to you and asks you something, do you say to yourself "This person is an illusion" and not acknowledge them? Of course, one can choose to do this, but I think we can agree that it is not the most skillful way of living. Now, these are matters of the physical realm in which we all experience. But then you see people applying this absolutist way of thinking to interactions on other planes, and I think this is because the spiritual planes are not something that most people commonly experience. I would like to see the spiritual realms normalized, so that one understands there is skillful and unskillful on all planes and the view that all planes are illusory doesn't change this. All traditional societies have a class of person who train to work with the spiritual world, for instance those who doing things like exorcisms, sending of the dead, consecrating temples, etc. For them, what is "spiritual" for most is their everyday existence. What I think is often not appreciated by Westerners following Vajrayana is that much of Tantra is about doing this kind of thing. In Theravada and Sutra Mahayana, it is considered that one's mastery of samadhi practice gives one this kind of power, and applying this samadhi power to the cultivation of insight brings realization. Also in Sutra Mahayana, one connects to various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas such as Amitabha, and this also can give one power in the spiritual world. But even if one's practice is reciting Amitabha's name to be reborn in the pure land, when realization dawns one sees that Amitabha's nature is the same as one's own Buddha nature, and one's own mind is the pure land. Buddhist scholars say that a slightly later phase of Mahayana developed the practice of visualizing one's self as a Buddha in order to have power in the spiritual world in order to benefit beings, but it was not initially considered a separate vehicle to enlightenment. Now, when deity yoga fully matured into the Higher Tantras that were propagated in Tibet, it was still considered that Deity yoga is something that gives you power in the spiritual world in addition to being a path to enlightenment. Padmasambhava was able to subjugate the demons obstructing the construction of Samye due to his mastery of wrathful yidams, for instance. It was understood that Deity yoga without insight was a very real possibility, and there are are stories of Tantric practitioners who mastered the generation stage but lacked Bodhicitta and/or the completion stage becoming powerful evil spirits after death. Moreover, there are a whole lot of Tantric rituals to do various things which are spiritual from an ordinary perspective, but mundane from the perspective of emptiness. And different deities are used for different kinds of activities. So to say that a yidam is just a representation of one's own Buddha Nature is not the whole story. Viewing the yidam as a representation of one's own Buddha Nature is skillful means for realizing enlightenment via deity yoga, analogous to a pure land practitioner meditating on his nature being non-different from Amitabha's nature. Stepping away from discussion of Vajrayana and coming back to the OP, I think that it is important to cultivate trustworthiness in one's self in order to attract trustworthy guides physical and non-physical, purity in one's self in order to attract pure guides physical and non-physical, etc.

I think this reflects a change in Wim's own instructions.