Creation

I think is a question that comes up because of our modern worldview. Classical Buddhism does have various planes of existence that can be traveled to or communicated with, and does have the idea that the siddhi of telepathy, mind to mind communication, etc. is possible, but this is already included in the ordinary 5 skandhas, not something extra that one has to postulate. In modern times this is seen as something radically other than the world we know, so we might think that we need to postulate something more. Now, just as with ordinary experience, the experience of these "subtle" levels can be analayzed into it's component parts if you are an Abhidharmika, their inherent existence deconstructed if you are a Madhamika, etc. The classical authors just didn't feel the need to address these as a separate category. Even if you do want to postulate subtle levels to account for things like mind to mind communication, "it's all one" is not what Buddhism teaches. Mahayana does teach that all perceived separation is ignorance, but not because there is only one being. "Neither one nor many" would be more accurate.

I think the expectation that great spiritual beings fit our standard of perfection is horribly cruel to them. Especially those that don't even have to bother being here and do so out of compassion. I don't have the idea that someone who experiences enlightenment will never experience anger or lust or ego. They are not living in caves, they need a certain amount of vibrancy in their body to do things like travel all over the world giving teachings to thousands of people, and vibrancy in the body = amplification of anger, lust and ego. Presumably they are also very sensitive to the mental/emotional states and karma of others, and so are dealing with all of that. Then there are universal level energies they are probably tapped into that most people are not even aware of, and they might not have completely transcended that even if they are light years beyond ordinary people. So the fact that they are as stable as they are is already huge. That is just about the raw energy of anger, lust, and ego. Then there is the issue of morality being mostly if not completely conventional. Sai Baba massaged the genitals of some male disciples in a completely non sexual way, and people act like he was some kind of monster for it, and say he was a total charlatan. How absurd! Maybe he had some reason for doing that that he knew he couldn't explain to them because they wouldn't be able to see beyond social programming. Someone who by all accounts was off the charts enlightened should at least get the benefit of the doubt. This is especially compared to "gurus" who were actually abusive. If you read the stories about Swami Satyananda of the Bihar School of Yoga, that is someone who I consider genuinely immoral. But in between there is a lot of grey area. Someone mentioned Muktananda acting like he was "above the law". Is the law the same as morality? Generally speaking, a person who feels radically different from those around him will have much more trouble following with the conventions of others. And this is just the case with highly spiritually advanced people, even more so than ordinary people who feel different: it's not just that their personality, etc. is different, but the entire way that they perceive reality is different. Now, I believe that as a being develops spiritually, there should be a corresponding development of morality into something "post conventional" (see Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development), but this is a personal process and I would be very wary of judging someone who has been through this process as having come to the "wrong" conclusion. In the end, the only real law is cause and effect. This is something that I have thought about a fair amount.

For those who are interested, here is a piece by Thanissaro Bhikkhu that explains the difference between jhana as described in the suttas and jhana as described in the Visuddhimagga. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#part3-f Some teachers teach sutta style jhana, others Visuddhimagga style jhana. Ajahn Bram teaches a kind of hybrid. A really untapped source is the Chinese tradition, which has its own understanding of dhyana.

No, I don't believe kundalini is a form of possession. Or the other thing you said. The scholar-practitioner who talks about this is Christopher Wallis, in particular his paper "The Descent of Power: Possession, Mysticism, and Metaphysics in the Śaiva Theology of Abhinavagupta". For example he discusses the uses of a Sanskrit term usually meaning possession here: To give a more concrete example, several kundalini teachers, such as Susan Carlson (ShaktiMama on this form) when asked what the difference between chi and kundalini is, say something like you direct chi, kundalini directs you, or kundalni has a mind/intelligence of its own, etc. So you can see why an ancient society would relate this to being possessed by a deity. I remember a post of Vajrahridaya on this form relating Hindu vs Buddhist attitudes to kriyas from his personal experience with both, saying the Hindu attitude is that it's the goddess moving you. So even to this day there is this kind of attitude. The thing which first turned me on to these kind of ideas was a post by extremely knowledgeable traditionally trained tantiric adept that was here briefly with the screen name "guruyoga", where he mentioned kundalini awakening as different goddesses (Kali and Sri Lalita were the examples he used) depending on the practices you were doing. Cross reference this with Vajrayana ideas about the generation stage and you start thinking about things differently than most Western accounts. But I don't want to say more.

One scholar-practioner I've read has textual mention of kundalini co-emergent with mentioning the system of chakras along the central channel. That is, the central channel, specific points like the heart or crown, and the notion of preserving bindu, are mentioned much earlier in the textual record than a full set of chakras with petals etc along the central channel, and the latter is the context in which kundalini is first mentioned. Another scholar-practitioner emphasizes the connection between kundalini and the idea of being pervaded/posesseed by a deity and related practices in the textual record, something which is really missing from most Western accounts of kundalini. (This is related to "What are you surrending to"). Now, when you compare this to the path the Buddha taught in the suttas (concentration meditation leding to absorbtion in states free of afflicting mental factors i.e. jhana, mindfulness meditation leading to seeing all things as being dukkha anatta and anicca, contemplation of disgust of the body), there really is no connection to the practices related to kundalini. Not that something like kundalini would never happen on such a path, but that it is simply not given any mention ar attention at all. Dating texts is controversial of course, but it would be a tough sell to place texts mentioning kundalini (including the "Yoga Upandishads") before, say, the seventh or eighth century by the standards of texual criticism.

This is such an enormously important notion. Really.

I personally like to keep the differences in as much clairity as the similarities. I think there is enough unique about kundalini to merit it being considered it's own thing, but belonging to a family of paths which utilize energy latent in the lower parts of the central channel. Both tummo and kundalini yoga use speak of causing the winds to enter the central channel and the reversing of prana and apana at the navel, or slightly below, which cultivates inner warmth. They even use the same breath ratio. Yet the descriptions diverge here. Kundalini is held to give samadhi when it reaches the crown, yet tummo melts the white drop which then drips down, giving bliss. Now, is this merely the academic nitpicking you speak of? I don't think so, seeing as Mark Griffin distinguishes between the red drop at the navel which is used in tummo and the kundalini which is a coiled serpent at the base of the spine, and the "cool lake" of kundalini at the crown from the white drop just below the crown. In terms of technique, kundalni is stimilated by khecari mudra, which is not used in tummo practice, and there is no notion of tummo being something that can be awakenend in you by someone else and from then on you do nothing but surrender to it, like there is with kundalini. It seems that they are working with different aspects parts of the same system (5 winds, left right and central channel). Same system accounts for the similarities, different aspects of the system accounts for the differences.

I don't think Ngondro could serve as a complete path without empowerment. With empowerment, it is said that guru yoga alone is (in principle capable of being) a complete path, everything else is skillful means.

As far as fine tuning is concerned, "can you imagine" or "can you have the feeling of" would do better than "can you feel" if there is intentionality implied. I had the impression that that is the kind of thing being discussed here. Your example of Wang Liping seems to be a case of having your attention directed to something that is already there, in which case non-intentional language is appropriate.

Thanks for sharing this, Brian.

Hi freeform. By phrasing this as a question, it takes out the intentionality. If the point is to intend the sense of a sphere below the belly button, my mind would parse "can you feel a sphere below your belly button?" as a yes/no question, very probably answer "no" since no intention to do so was made, and then ask, "What in the world is he asking such a dumb question for?" and become frustrated with the person asking it. Don't know about anyone else though; do you find this works for some people, perhaps those who are not highly rationally oriented?

Hi Small Fur, I know Jerry Alan Johnson talks a fair amount about Yuan Shen in his Chinese Medical Qigong Therapy text, but I don't have access to it at present. Perhaps someone knowledgeable of his work can chime in? Another person who might know have some information out there about this is Damo Mitchell. I am in the middle of watching some of his videos where he briefly touches upon yuan shen and yuan qi before moving into yuan jing and how it is a vibratory quality that is not in the body per say, and that in alchemy the body dissolves and you can perceive yuan jing as a certain kind of light. Seems like it might be up your alley. http://www.scholarsage.com/yang-qi-and-yuan-jing-part-1/ http://www.scholarsage.com/yang-qi-and-yuan-jing-part-2/ As for "Chinese hypnosis", by this do you mean a method to bypass the conscious mind in order to allow other aspects of the mind to interacted with verbally, which utilizes paradigms and methods characteristic of Chinese medicine? I would be very interested if anyone here had experience with or knowledge of such a thing.

This is an intersteing and relevant point. Many mathematicians rejected the idea of non-Euclidean geometry because it was thought that the parallel postulate could be proved, even though no proof had yet been found, which would imply non-Euclidean geometry would entail a logical contradiction. A major step toward the acceptance of non-Euclidean geometry was the realization that models for non-Euclidean geometry existed within Euclidean geometry. For example the great circles on (the surface of) a sphere form a non-Euclidean geometry. Therefore non-Euclidean geometry must be as logically consistent as Euclidean geometry, and non-Euclidean geometry is an equally valid perspective on can take on geometry. The relevant point is that maybe it will turn out that that energy phenomenon will be brought within the fold of biophysics, and then it will seen that the energy perspective does not contradict the scientific worldview, but is as valid a way of viewing the body as the biochemical model so common in medicine today. In fact, for the coarsest level of energy, the one that is dealt with in TCM, this is exactly what I expect will happen.

And now that yoga is mainstream it is mostly devoid of it's original transformative power, either because it is completely secularized or it gives an illusion of spirituality when there is none. This could very very easily happen to mindfulness. For example, reducing it to a tool to make you more focused so you can be better at running the rat race, and cope with the stress of an incredibly unnatural existence instead of saying "no" to it.

OK, now that there is some on topic discussion, here is what I wanted to say originally. It addresses the difference between Tantra, Zen, and Dzogchen from a historical perspective. In early Mahayana, it was taught that Buddhahood took an absolutely enormous amount of time to reach. There were two streams of practice that developed that claimed to be able to shorten this. One was the esoteric path: use of dharanis and mantras, visualizing deities, and performing rituals that would connect one to enlightened beings to receive their blessings. This was used both to develop siddhis to use for the benefit of all beings, and to help on the path to liberation, but at first it was seen as an adjunct to the Mahayana path. Eventually, it developed into Vajrayana, which claimed to be an independent vehicle to enlightenment that actualized the body, speech and mind of a Buddha within the practitioner using the same types of techniques (mantras, visualizations of deities, rituals) formerly just used to connect to external enlightened beings. And the Higher Tantras incorporated even more methods like utilizing the subtle body (channels, chakras, and drops) and intermediate states (dreams, dying, afterdeath state, etc.). The other stream built on the idea of Buddha nature, i.e. that enlightenment already exists as a potentiality in all beings, and developed meditative techniques to directly access one's enlightened state of consciousness. Historically, the first example of this was Chan. "A special transmission outside the scriptures" is how they put it. But tantric practitioners in India in Tibet also created systems to do the same thing. The original thing called Dzogchen was one such system (now called Dzogchen Semde, the Mind Series of Dzogchen), as well Matripa's teachings in India and Gamopa's "Sutra Mahamudra" in Tibet. In these contexts, Vajrayana and the direct pointing out methods were practiced side by side. The latter view the path as uncovering your Buddha nature, and don't use any "esoteric" methods except the pointing out instructions of a qualified guru. In the former, there are methods for using chakras and channels, intermediate states, sex, etc., but they are based on the idea of creating the enlightened state within yourself, rather uncovering it. So these can be complementary, and in the Kagyu school, for example, doing these two types of practice side by side is still how it is done. But what Dzogchen developed into is a way to use Vajrayana-like methods involving channels and drops, intermediate states, etc. but done from the perspective of already having enlightenment and just needing to discover it. That's why it's considered to be the highest path: it fully combines both streams of Mahayana which give a "fast path".

Steve, thanks for posting this thorough reply, and for being who you're being in this thread. I just wanted to add that IMO the main difference between Zen and Dzogchen is not view but method. Dzogchen incorporates methods based on channels and drops and intermediate states coming from it's tantric pedigree.

Thanks for posting! I will probably be getting his book and CD soon. This is a very interesting question. Astral explorer Kurt Leland has performed a sort of non-physical cartography and bestiary; he talks about the "Dream Zone" and "Afterdeath Zone" being parts of the astral plane. This is from his personal experience in having what he calls "adventures in consciousness" during his sleep, where he has learned to navigate these different realms and identify the beings he encounters as projections of his own consciousness, other dreamers, the recently deceased, non-physical guides, thought forms created by people's emotions, and more besides. His books "Otherwhere" and the "Unanswered Question" deal with this kind of thing. More recently, he came upon the Theosophical notion of multiple planes and bodies, and now talks about the path of spiritual development in terms of accessing the higher planes and devloping the abilities of the "bodies" (e.g. mental body, causal body) that operate on these planes. Here is an account of his interacting with a "dream guide" - a being whose job it is to be of assistance to dreamers: http://www.kurtleland.com/astral-projection-log/2004/115-diner-in-the-sky-astral-and-mental-planes Like I said in another thread recently, there are very few authors who have changed my worldview so dramatically, and IMO much what he writes resonates with Michael Lomax's teachings.

Yes, I skimmed this thread and noticed this. It seems that discussion of Dzogchen has filled the void left by lack of discussion of Mo Pai. It's disgusting. I wanted to post something in response to the OP, but I don't want to put kind of energy I wanted to bring to that post into this thread.

Hey John, Someone who writes about astral travel from the theosophical perspective is Kurt Leland. There are very few authors who have changed my worldview so dramatically. Much of what he writes resonates with Michael Lomax's teachings, IMO. Here is an experience of his with the Akashic Records: http://www.kurtleland.com/astral-projection-log/2003/94-tour-of-the-akashic-records-upper-mental-plane-causal-body

The non-Tibetan influenced books that I have seen come most highly recommended are Waggoner's "Lucid Dreaming" and and Love's "Are You Dreaming?" For Tibetan influenced works, Charlie Morely (who is apparently endorsed by some Kagyu lama) has a book and a CD on the basics of lucid dreaming, and Andrew Holecek has a multi CD set that looks very thorough for dream yoga.

My mind would have attempted to follow the instructions on some level in order to comprehend them ("don't think of blue"). And my mind would have continued to bat around the instructions on a mental level long after I read them, which also would contain a subtle trying to do them. That is how I observe my mind to work. With Vajrayana, which operates at extremely subtle levels, these thoughts have more impact than your average thoughts.

One of very few Westerners to be given the Tibetan Buddhist analog of an academic degree. Also, once the controversial moderator of the then largest (but now defunct) Buddhist forum on the web. He has many admirers and many detractors in the online Buddhist world.

Not willing to discuss this more. If you would have acted differently in the same situation, so be it.

I was reading a certain publicly available Dzogchen book, and was at a point dealing with practice instructions. It was just for curiosity's sake, but I didn't think anything of it because it was publicly available. At a certain step, an unmistakable message arose in my mind: "STOP READING THIS". So I stopped. Words are not "just words", especially when it comes to Dzogchen.

Seth, While we're venting, here's a reflection for you. You come across to me as incredibly judgmental and condescending. Your energy feels downright hostile, like a tiger ready to tear to shreds anyone who doesn't think like him, and is strongly threatening to me personally. Maybe that's because, despite not being racist or homophobic, I'm the kind of sexually maladjusted egghead your female friends complained about, and that I get the impression that you despise me as well.