forestofclarity

There are completion stages with and without characteristics/marks/attributes. With tends to refer to the subtle body practices, and without to Mahamudra.

I've always been taught subtle body practices in the Kagyu lineage are preparatory or supportive of Mahamudra, which is considered the higher practice (and incidentally, appropriate for lay people). But other may have it differently. I'm not really a traditionalist.

In my experience, high level subtle body practitioners tend to make it a full time endeavor (or at least the equivalent of a full time job), often requiring long term retreat.

I'm curious as to whether you think such an approach is suited to lay people, or if it is the domain of full time practitioners.

I think it is this re-orientation that is important and key to non-dual paths. Typically, the assumption is that we have to gain, or arrange, or somehow add on. Whereas in non-dual traditions, the orientation is not about gaining, but about removing hindrances and ignorance. I think the key points are well summarized in the DKR checklist @dwai posted earlier. Which is why these paths typically spend a great deal of time going over the defects of gaining, adding, seeking elsewhere, etc. No matter how much subtle body or energy work one does, anything added or gained will eventually be lost.

So I see the root of the issue. Fortunately, there is an ancient chant from the Tantra of Unspoken Words: When children do not listen to their parent's words, An evil time, when Daobums quarrel, And people read nondual philosophy but practice not When there are Mo Pai feuds and Buddhist wars alike, These provoke the one Known as Steve On the Internet Woe to the ones Upon whom he pours his well-thought posts!

I would add the same the other way around: it is never wise to foreclose something. However, I find that one may be inevitably led to the path and practice proper to this life. Traditionally, there are at least three parts to practice: 1) hearing; 2) contemplating; 3) meditating. The first two typically lead to intellectual understanding, while the third leads to realization. Then the depth and stability of realization is another matter. Some one may have glimpses, while others may be firmly established and act from the truth. Well, again it depends. Typically, ignorance refers to a fundamental ignorance of our true nature and the true nature of the world we experience. But it isn't a matter of belief, but direct realization of the truth. Once you start to see it, it cannot really be denied or argued with, only forgotten. Like gravity. Just my opinion, mileage may vary and all that.

It is not clear to me what you are referring to when you say non-dual path or philosophy. There is a broad range that can include a traditionally trained Vedantin or Tibetan Buddhist, all the way to self-proclaimed followers who may have sat with Papaji. Even in these groups there are people who study but don't practice, or practice but don't study. Lots of diversity. The proper method will depend on one's goal, and also one's karmic or energetic make-up and disposition. So if your goal is to become a Buddha, then subtle body practices, per most traditions, are secondary and supportive. But if your goal is to become an energy healer, then subtle body practices will be more relevant than nondual teachings. Of course, not everyone has capacity. Some people suck at subtle body practices. Of course, there is interplay and constant flux between the two. We are always cultivating a subtle body of one sort or the other, and also either adding to or eliminating ignorance.

This thread reminds me of the Hanuman story that Swami Sarvapriyananda often tells/cites. Rama asks Hanuman how Hanuman sees Rama. Hanuman's answer (or at least one translation): “O Lord, while I identify myself with my body, I am Thy servant (Dvaita). When I consider myself as Individual Soul, I am Thy part (Vishishtadvaita). But when I look upon myself as the Spirit (Atma), I am one with Thee Thyself (Advaita).”

Oh come now, this stuff is fun to talk about. And very, very few people are even interested!

I would agree there are many differences, just as there are many differences between a Vedanta temple and a Buddhist temple. The iconography is different, the ritual space is different, the actions performed therein are different. But this is only on the level of objects. If we look past the objects to the underlying space that, while not being an object, is the foundation for all objects, well, then how can we say at this level they aren't the same? It isn't like there is one kind of space for Vedanta temples and one kind of space for Buddhist temples. So I suppose it depends on where the focus is.

I actually went through Shankara's (translated) writings to see how much he attacked Buddhism. turns out, it wasn't much. I don't think Buddhism at the time in India (if it even existed) was much of a force. Rather, the focus of his critiques were directed at Mimamsa schools. And the critiques against Buddhism were based primarily on Abhidharma concepts (especially momentariness) as opposed to the Mahayana and Tantric ideas espoused by Stirling. And if you choose to stick to Shankara, you might want to check out Swami Satchidanandendra on the topic because stripping Vedanta back to Shankara eliminates about 1,000 years of Vedanta. Per Swami, even typical notions like the Self or Atman are not actually positive descriptions, but rather part of the larger method of adhyasa -apavada method of proposing and negating. I was listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda describe that in Vedanta, in addition to mantra, there has traditionally been deity visualization and practice. This would align the core practices of Vedanta, Tantra, and Tantric Buddhism in that specific regard. And of course, in none of these systems is that the highest practice. It seems very clear that all of these systems share roots. I have had at least one teacher traditionally trained in both Zen and Vedanta who thought there was no conflict. But scholars vary along the lines of comparison, which can be read about here: Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist? (gsu.edu)

Even on subtle and causal layers, I presume there needs to be some discrimination. But usually (as in your example as well) the test for the "truth" or objectivity or intersubjectivity or whatever usually falls on the physical dimension (although it need not, for example with awareness teachings). For example, with energy work, the most convincing display is not the inner feeling but the outer manifestations. Between two data points, there are many connecting stories that can be told. I've never really been comfortable with drawing conclusions, only letting the experience stand for itself, but it is interesting to see which connections people like to draw. Another example is the Daoist Dan tians, the various chakras systems, Tibetan Buddhism, etc. Many people presume one or more of these are "true," but it seems to me whatever one you cultivate will be the true one manifesting physical and psychological effects. Not because that is how the body is set up, but more due to the malleability of the world. And yet malleability only goes so far, as I doubt you can just invent a made-up system and have it work. A paradox. One interesting thing is the distinction between veridical and non-veridical out of body experiences. Near death, there are strong reports of people observing things their body could not detect. Typical non-near death OBE procedures, however, usually fail to uncover actual data, such as the ability to correctly read an obscured card. Personally, I don't think in any case is anyone leaving their body, because the body is not the container. Rather, it would seem closer to describe these as shifts in consciousness.

Well, certainly, but it is important to distinguish between essence and function. One cannot purchase an illusory waking state home with illusory money from a dream, for instance. There are still valid and invalid relative cognitions. The wisdom of equality is not necessarily the same as the wisdom of discrimination. It is interesting because the teachers I've had have been fairly split on the issue. Most of my Buddhist teachers have said that most visions, etc. are purely dreamlike illusions (to a point) merely to be discarded. Non-Buddhist teachers, often have an opposite view, especially those involved in energy or magical work. So in this example, how would one distinguish between a vision of a friend who died vs the friend who died is actually visiting?

Not to get fussy, but since HHDL was invoked, this is pretty much the Chittamatra view that is fairly widely condemned as falling short of a deep understanding of emptiness.

I am curious as to how people determine that what is see in visions, or visionary beings, are not purely subjective.

I would say that these other practices may have other ends--- sometimes worldly (samsaric goals), sometimes heavenly (higher samsaric goals), sometimes preparatory.

Around 51:40 he segues into it.

His take on the Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, outlining the Kagyu Shentong position, is pretty interesting.

One thing I've never really come to terms with the whole "God" concept. From a first person point of view, we experience a certain flow of lights and sounds that we can assemble into a theistic or non-theistic narrative. It is interesting that Swami places ontology at the level of relative truth. Personally, I don't think one really experiences "God" as much as one has experiences that one can pattern into a narrative about God (Vedanta) or not (Buddhism). However, the non-theistic narrative always seems a bit lacking. It is a far different thing even on the relative level to say "this is all an expression of the mind" versus "this is all an expression of God."

There goes my weekend plans...

HHDL from the Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra:

It is a pretty common theme, not only in the Bible, but in commentaries. Some (21) Bible verses: https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-light/

No spiritual non-lucid dreams?

Yes. Not all vivid dreams are lucid, and not all lucid dreams are vivid. But when a dream is lucid AND vidid, that is something.