forestofclarity

This raises a few interesting issues. First, Tantric Buddhism isn't really about learning to control underlying energy flows in my opinion--- energy work may be one part of a part of it (by this, I mean completion stage with characteristics), but definitely not the only or even the most important point. Moreover, Tantric Buddhism is one part of an entire path. Unless one is interested in Buddhism generally, I don't think there will be much use in the Tantric portion. In other words, I don't think one can practice deity yoga apart from the other practices. I have posted a summary below of deity practice from an experienced Western teacher to give a brief overview. Second, I think one would find a great deal of difficulty integrating Vajrayana Buddhist and Christian practice. Many Mahayana practitioners would likely consider Christianity to be a form of eternalism, as it usually teaches about a permanent God and soul. Of course, how God and soul are glossed in Christianity is varied and vast, but the traditional teachings and sources tend to be quite dualistic. In addition, most Christian practitioners I know of in the end tend to compromise Buddhism in favor of Christianity or vice versa. However, at least one famous teacher had many Christian students (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu). Third, one of the hallmarks of the India-based religions is that you have three prongs: teacher, personal experience, and tradition. The tradition and personal experience prevent you from getting caught up with a bad teacher. The teacher and tradition prevent you from getting caught up in your own mind. And the teacher and personal experience is what actually brings the tradition to life. Does mystical Christianity have a similar tradition that performs such a check (outside of becoming a monk in Mt. Athos)? Though there are many different styles of practice in this vehicle, the development stage and completion stage are often viewed as the hallmarks of tantric practice. The development stage uses visualization, mantra recitation, and deep states of concentration to disrupt the habitual tendency to view the world and its inhabitants as impure and truly existent. The imaginary process of visualizing oneself as a deity in a pure realm, for example, allows the practitioner to experience directly the fluid, ethereal nature of perception. The completion stage has two components: the conceptual completion stage and nonconceptual completion stage. The first aims to harness the subtle energies of the body and consciously bring them into the central channel. These practices, which often involve intense yogic postures, focus on the link between the energetic body and the mind, the idea being that by controlling the former one will be able to undo the negative conditioning of the latter. The nonconceptual completion stage, by contrast, is an effortless approach. Often associated with the Great Perfection and Mahamudra, this form of completion stage practice emphasizes recognizing the nature of mind and experiencing its pure expressions without the filter of dualistic fixation. The gateway to tantric practice is empowerment, or abhisheka. Conferred by a guru, empowerments authorize students to practice the teachings of the Vajra Vehicle. Each lineage and style of practice has its own unique empowerments, which are said to “ripen” the students’ entire being and prepare them for tantric practice. The commitments of each empowerment are known as samaya vows. https://learning.tergar.org/2011/11/18/the-nine-yanas/

Madhyamaka Buddhism denies that there is anything as a self. So what you're asking here is if there is one self or many selves? The answer is neither--- there aren't any selves. But that doesn't mean there's nothing--- obviously, there is a quite a lot happening. The problem is that the mind likes to divide things into neat, crisp categories but things don't work that way. In fact, from a Madhyamaka Buddhist POV, our intuitions are the opposite of how things are. We think if there are no selves underneath the surface, no bones or structure to reality so to speak, everything falls apart. But it is only because there are no selves that change and transformation are even possible. It reminds me of the particle/wave issue with photons in quantum physics. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Well, sometimes it acts like a photon, and sometimes it acts like a wave. It doesn't fit into our mental boxes, but that doesn't make it any less true. CTR has a good reputation in India/Nepal apparently.

This very notion is dismantled in the Madhyamaka argument called “neither one nor many.” From a Buddhist POV, you cannot even establish a single thing, so talk of one and many becomes incoherent in the context of emptiness.

I don't know about that. Most modern Buddhists would probably say that Abhidharma provides the underlying conceptual framework for Buddhism the way Samkhya does for some Hindu schools of thought. However, even within Buddhism the same terms can have different meanings depending on tradition and context. Abhidharma doesn't use the koshas, the gunas, the same ideas of causation, etc. Adbhidharma starts is very based in experience and doesn't really have the similar speculative metaphysics that you find in many of the Hindu school. Abhidharma is also fundamentally deconstructionist-- everything is broken into parts, wholes are generally denied, and the fundamental marks of existence are impermanence, dissatisfaction, and no-self. Early Buddhism is shockingly atomistic--- a point often seized upon by Hindu critics. I would certainly be up to seeing some comparisons as I just got a new Abhidharma book. FWIW, I think the kosha model is a good and useful one, but quite different from the skandhas.

The analysis is not fully correct: the realization of the futility of the world is in fact something to note from a spiritual perspective. In fact, many traditions indicate that this is absolutely essential for any spiritual progress. In Buddhism, it is summarized by the First Noble Truth that there is suffering. It is this very suffering that makes it possible to turn away from the world at all. The issue with suicide is that there is an assumption that death is somehow an end or a cessation. However, nothing really begins or truly ends. The entire cosmos is in constant transformation. From a Tibetan Buddhist point of view, death is not unlike going to sleep. When we go to sleep, there is often a period of darkness and forgetting. Based on this experience during the dying process, we think that is the end. But if death is truly like sleep, after this initial period of unconsciousness, we will rise again in a dream. After the dream, we are reborn again into the world. Similarly, the it is taught that the dying process is the same. An initial cessation, dreamlike experiences, and a rebirth. Similarly, no matter how depressed or how much pain we are in, it is not a part of our true nature. Again, we experience this every night when we go into deep dreamless sleep. We let go of everything. Pain is transient. Because of this, it is possible to find an end to suffering. The only way to end suffering is to remove our ignorance that is the cause of it. Having been born in this time and in this place, with an interest in spirituality, and to see the futility of attachment and playing in the red dust of the world can be a great fortune. The curse can become a blessing showing us the way out. I would challenge anyone on this board who feels the same way as the OP to use this as an opportunity to choose a tradition and practice in it. Whether it is Buddhism, Vedanta, Daoism, or an another practice that has a proven record of liberation. Follow a single path, preferably with a single teacher, and do what they tell you to do. Having come to the conclusion that life is meaningless, please seek out and find a teacher you can learn from. Make it your life. See what happens. The result may be very surprising. I guarantee you will not regret it.

The word that came to mind for me was "solidarity." Way back in the late 1800's to early 1900's, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim was warning about how solidarity was going from what he called mechanical to organic solidarity (if I recall correctly). In mechanical solidarity, each person was important, irreplaceable. Whereas in organic solidarity, you can cut out a person easily. He mused that this led to increased suicide rates. The terms may have made sense in his day, but today I would think the terms should be reversed--- old societies were well-connected and "organic" whereas modern societies are more "mechanical." The word used by military people to describe the unique structure of military culture is "camaraderie."

I don't know the causes behind the way you are posting here, but rest assured that the peace and happiness we seek is not found in using harsh speech with strangers on the internet. It is not wise, skillful, funny, or socially decent. It seems that you have a strong connection with Buddhism --- a negative connection is still a connection. If you want to uncover its treasures, you would need to find the right teacher (for you) who can guide you to the proper realization. If it doesn't suit you, then there is no use in trying to sow doubt among others--- I would suggest simply moving on to a tradition or a teacher who can give you teachings you can use and apply.

Perhaps a new thread?

The problem with Buddhist/Advaita comparisons are that the fruits are ultimately non-conceptual. How to compare non-conceptually? As the Zen master said "YOU HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING!!!!" By mind, I mean that which is clear and knowing. Clear means objects such as perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. can arise. Knowing is just that--- knowing the objects that arise. Emptiness--- as stated, it is empty of a permanent, unitary, independent self. Self--- all of them! If you wish to continue to push the words until they lose all meaning, go ahead--- it will lead to a nice experience of the emptiness of words. If you want to freshen up the post and ask some relevant questions, feel free to do so. Or not. Your choice, because well--- emptiness!

Great article. Of course, as the author points out, not everyone can walk away from a very high paying job into a university professorship. I would not recommend spiritual practice to anyone with worldly ambitions--- it does tend to undermine it. On the other hand, I highly recommend aging as a spiritual practice. I find that getting older highlights the impermanence of the world and the futility of accomplishment. And you don't even have to put in any effort!

The no self teaching isn't as much of a doctrine as an experiential pointing. A lot of people struggle with it --- I know I did for many years. It is very subtle--- so subtle in fact that the Buddha almost didn't teach at all. Also keep in mind that when we talk about the teachings, there is the conceptual and the non-conceptual. The conceptual points the way, but in the end the fruition is non-conceptual. Even conceptually, non-self is often misinterpreted as nihilism (i.e. if there is no self, who is typing this post?) or eternalism (no self applies to everything but not the True Self). It is a fine line to walk. That's ok, Buddhism is not for everyone. No self was something of a koan for me, driving me to different traditions: Theravada, Zen, and finally Tibetan Buddhism. I also have friends in many other traditions. All the people with experience who I trusted repeated the same thing about the lack of self. I didn't like it and I wanted there to be a self. Finally, I realized that I either trusted the teachers and the traditions or I didn't. Only then was I able to drop my preconceptions and see things a bit more clearly. Now, if the Buddha himself appeared and said he didn't teach no self, it wouldn't matter. The truth is plain. I doubt he would given the very, very numerous recorded no-self teachings captured in Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan sources. Ironically, given the emptiness of all things, people are free to create the patterning that they want. I never said the position I am putting forth is universal, but I have found it to be overwhelmingly the majority position in all the schools I have encountered. Usually, the people who state that the Buddha taught a True Self tend to fall into two categories in my experience: Vedantins and crack-pots. For Vedantins, I sometimes find a tendency try to reduce all religions to one universal religion: Vedanta. The crack-pots are usually self-appointed, messianic, and quite self-centered. In an article I posted earlier, Vajranatha states that the position can be found in some strains of Chinese Buddhism, but such teachings are not reflected in the Indian sources. So I admit that it is possible that True Self may be taught in such schools, but as I stated it is very much a minority position. Sheng Yen was a very orthodox teacher. He did teach about a universal mind, but only as a stage of practice. I would be surprised that despite his many public proclamations, he would find a atman/Brahman in Buddhism. I did not study with him, so I am not privy to his oral teachings as your friend may. I am vaguely acquainted with some of his students and dharma heirs, and they have also denied an underlying true self in his teachings (and I certainly looked!). Given emptiness, anything is possible.

I think that shows a lack of history on the Theravadans part because if Mahayana Buddhism was corrupted, it would have been corrupted by Tantra, specifically Nondual Shaiva Tantra. The problem with reading books is that Buddhism is not a religion of the book, like Protestant Christianity. Buddhism relies on oral transmission, and proper transmission requires that the teacher has realized the teachings. In that way, the teacher can guide the student experientially toward the same goal (or non-goal). The terms are coded, and the meaning on the terms can vary depending on the context in which they are taught. Accordingly, the only way to really learn Buddhism is to interact with a teacher and a sangha over an extended period of time, learning the practices experientially, and receiving feedback. To put it another way, it is an experiential transmission. This is especially true when dealing with Zen, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra. The teachings are put forth in a specific way for specific reasons. The idea of any self, universal or not, works crosswise against the techniques of Buddhism. This isn't to say that Self teachings aren't useful and liberating, say in a NST or a Vedanta context. It just isn't the case in a Buddhist context.

I am no expert in the Lankavatara. Can you please point me out where that is the case? Some of the older translations used terms like "Universal Mind" for alayavijnana, but that is bad translation. Alayavijnana is the base or storehouse consciousness, but it is not a grand cosmic mind. It may be "universal" in the sense that everyone has it, but it is not "universal" in the sense that there is a single universal consciousness.

I have found that most people who think that are coming at it from a Vedantic or a Western idealist perspective. In addition, many of the early translators (i.e. E.E. Evans Wentz) took a theosophical view in early translations of some of the Buddhist texts. However, according to people who specialize in this field (scholars and lamas), this is not at all the case. The Indian sources do not support this view. There may be some schools of Chinese chan who hold this view, but it is by no means widely accepted. I do not know any Buddhist teachers trained in a lineage, Zen or otherwise, who holds to a universal mind. This is not to say that they aren't out there, but if they are, I believe they would be in a minority. Here are some articles if people want to read about it. Of course, reading about Zen and Tantra is very limited in that the oral instructions are absent. https://www.vajranatha.com/articles/dzogchen-chinese-buddhism-and-the-universal-mind.html http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro.html

Most Buddhist schools I am familiar with reject the notion that everything is mind. Everything we experience is mind, but that is not the same as saying everything is mind like Western idealism. And emptiness is not energy. In addition, most Buddhist teachers reject the idea of a universal mind. It is important because all of this has an experiential component.

The difference for a Mahayana Buddhist is that all things are empty—- there is no underlying substratum. Buddhist typologies of beings vary vastly between traditions.

Mind is usually described as having two aspects: clear and knowing. Clear as in allowing objects to arise—- thoughts, feelings, perceptions. Knowing as in being aware of them. A good explanation is in HHDL’s Gelug-Kagyu tradition of Mahamudra.

I signed up for this forum over a decade ago. At the time, I was studying both Buddhist and Daoist systems of practice. Over the years, my Daoist, energy, qi etc. based practices have changed, come and gone. My Buddhist practice has evolved quite a bit, but remains a steady core part of my life. I am wondering: for those who have engaged in energy-based practices long-term, what have you seen over the last decade or so? If you could beam back a transmission to your younger self, what would you say? What has worked and what hasn't? Have you discovered a simple, easy daily practice set?

I think that's a key point --- most of us don't want to spend years (or even 20-30 minutes a day) waving arms and imagining things. But I would bet that 99.99% of energy practices are exactly that. I suppose the same can be said for mind-based practices. With Buddhist meditation, you may end up spending many hours practicing with no noticeable result. Then one day, some large chunk breaks off and things are different. I couldn't stick with it in the absence of the class. I have only met one other teacher in the same vein--- you could feel the heat radiating from his lower dan tien. But he was very demanding and wanted people to spend all their free time on Tai Chi. And he lived pretty far away. I took Hsing-I recently for a couple of years--- but those guys wanted to fight and I kept getting hurt. I could not abide by the violent mentality. I had a meditation teacher who once said it doesn't matter if you meditate perfectly for an hour if you spend the other 23 training in distraction. So in this case, you would have to choose between mind-practice and energy-practice in daily life? Nice!

For the yogis and pranamayans out there, it looks like Kriya Yoga has been open sourced: Kriya Secrets Revealed by J.C. Stevens (step by step guide with pictures, I have this book) Kriya Yoga by Ennio Nimis (the free version; similar material, but much harder to read)

Vipassana is a fairly broad term--- it is found in many Buddhist traditions. What it means can vary, but it is typically paired with the term shamatha. Roughly speaking, shamatha is concentration meditation and vipassana is insight meditation. In many Theravadan lineages, you start with shamatha, say focusing on the breath. Once your mind settles, you then switch to vipassana, which can involve looking at all parts of the body to see if they are impermanent or not. Or it may involve analyzing the body into smaller parts, elements, or even atoms. Or it may involve noting whatever arises. Or it may involve sweeping the body. Most schools Theravadan schools that I am familiar with will say that shamatha only calms the mind, but it is vipassana that leads to wisdom and can actually liberate you. It is often described as two wings of a bird.

from Be As You Are, The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi

I would check both of them out and choose the teacher you like better.

I think the Tibetan perspective is interesting, although I think some of the language used in this video is disempowering--- there is definitely a "commoner vs. yogi/lama" dynamic going on there. Some one asked a lama why Westerners who have near death experiences don't experience the same experiences Tibetans report. The lama said the experiences only arise for practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. Looking at NDEs through different cultures, they do happen differently to different people. Some might take this to mean that they are subjective experiences, but this need not be the only explanation. From a Buddhist POV, worlds arise according to our karmic habits. Which makes me wonder--- are people experiencing/creating the world that they expect? I mean, if you spend the day watching zombie movies, you are more likely to have a dream about zombies. Perhaps it is the same thing with death--- if we conditions ourselves throughout life to expect one thing or another, perhaps that is what manifests at the moment of death.

The question is whether one can separate Xing and Ming. I don't think so--- cultivating one inevitably has an impact on the other. I might argue that the mind --- and everything else--- is really energy, so really all practice is energetics. There is also Buddhist forms of qigong--- they often focus on opening and letting go rather than gathering and transforming, at least in my limited experience.