3bob

"Anyway, the subject is 'merging and guru yoga' - bringing up what the Buddha postulated (or not) is besides the point..." hmmm, does that mean that your entire 2nd paragraph of: "Seeming duality is an illusion - it has no basis. It comes about due to dysfunctional or neurotic mental tendencies (which btw are also without basis but nonetheless occur as conditioned phenomena within mindstreams). Since it is without basis, speaking about merging might do not much more than to remain subservient to the ego's need to create a seeming separateness as a kind of buffering comfort activity so that one may remain within a limited field of thoughts that (imo) has all the trappings of self-delusion - i see no other usefulness in hanging on to an idea of an assumed activity which is 'mind created' and therefore has no basis in truth. The alternative, which is to resolve what inseparability really means, and finding that, to remain in that awareness, is more conducive to spiritual growth" which sounds to be heavily Buddhist biased is questionable here? (with such being postulations per your particular school or person which some may not agree with) just as some other posts in this thread may be; anyway imo. we are a fairly flexible and eclectic group or site when it comes to posts with comparisons, forays, morphing, correlations, etc. as related to OPs, which granted has fouls from time to time but to me most (and as demonstrated by mods) fall within workable bounds.

"The question i am considering is why the need to even postulate the term when doing that possibly leads to the creation of more mental activity, when the alternative, which is simply to first recognise and then maintain the resting in awareness of innate inseparability?" from CT umm, by very well recorded accounts the historic Buddha postulated a great deal and even worked to develop the Noble Eight fold path as part of a process or way - besides only "resting in awareness of innate inseparability".... so who would deny or dismiss another in whatever process they may be going through?

I like the Zen saying, “Before I sought enlightenment, the mountains were mountains and the rivers were rivers.While I sought enlightenment, the mountains were not mountains and the rivers were not rivers. After I attained enlightenment, the mountains were mountains and the rivers were rivers.” Also the one about, "before enlightenment chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment chop wood and carry water..." and after considering those sayings one might ask or have an issue along the lines of, is the 'First Noble Truth' true or not? and another take on, "Another question: when awake to the realization to no-separation, what do you do?" Well how about we also consider chapter 49 of the T.T.C. ? "The Sage has no interests of his own, But takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; He is also kind to the unkind: For Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; He is also faithful to the unfaithful: For Virtue is faithful. In the midst of the world, the Sage is shy and self-effacing..." and one more (if you will), although a tangent to this thread it relates in part to what has been brought up, By Yutang Lin, "Teaching of "Non-form" indicates non-attachment to form. Misinterpreted, it is adopted as holding to absence of form. Abiding in no forms at all, one falls into the abyss of void. Only in no grasping to form or non-form lies true liberation".

I'm not a Buddhist but a short and partial take to me on the Tibetan Wheel of Life drawing is that it depicts the various realms of mind and the related states of being that go with same....along with the freedom of "essence" that is also directly alluded to throughout as the Buddha. Anyway, the variety of Beings in the drawing can make various degrees of connection with each other and thus share information, knowledge, thoughts and feelings related to their respective realms of mind and their state of being; (I don't think many would disagree with that statement) but a particular being can not remain in one realm of mind and state of being and also "merge" or be in another at the same time because they would then be a different or changed being. Thus "merging" in that sense is not possible although a change in state of being within the wheel is. Further, the secret right under the noses of all the particular beings depicted is that the essence is already there throughout all of them and by being free of binding to particular areas in the wheel they will then merge-which is to realize the essence which already is and already merged and free throughout all of them in all of the realms. (and also beyond realms at the same time)

well a comparative aspect on the matter between two individual beings would be a great connection...a connection that could share information, feelings/thoughts/knowledge and certain forms of energy of a quality and quantity at a speed of say a thousand or ten thousand times faster, meaning what might take a life time of study, good fortune and evolution in understanding could transpire in say 7 minutes...

the mind, our mind, their mind, is nothing more or less than a (wonderfully diverse) thing (or things).... no-thing knows that but not by mind.

"the master replied: It is essential to practice a yidam deity because through that you will attain siddhis".... even though further context is added to this sentence I'd say it is wrong to initially condition the subject in this way for if such is the motive then greater problems will probably take place...so it far more important to work towards attaining spiritual freedom, its related truth, and wisdom of compassion, during and after which any form of power (of will and mind) is used for such motives.

5. A realizes he is not A, for nature realizes its nature and that it is free to play in the field as a form A and or rest in its own nature as it always does, B has read and heard many things about an A and he has all sorts of ideas and plans for A, but nature has other plans for B... that it can use form A to help carry out.

coming late to this thread and have not studied all the posts...but any discussion about Yoga would seemingly have to include the Lord of Yoga(s) yogis, and yoginis namely Lord Siva.

one can not completely re-memory or talk about it, since memory and talk can not hold it...

energy, including subtle energy is still of a category and name-able...but i like your point/image.

"Neti, neti", even includes the first of subtle light/prana. "Prana springs from the Self" per the Chandogya upanishad...ah but this is the Buddhsit forum so I have said enough already. Best wishes to you

perception from an apparent outside-in is problematic...also even the greatest of particular Gurus, Buddhas and Gods are still of form although of very subtle and refined forms with light...while "essence" is beyond light but works with light, thus essence can not really be named, limited to, be dependent upon, or be tied only to the greatest of particular beings; for essence reveals that to the true guru (and to their student) only by the power that essence works in and through the guru, thus not by the power of a particular "him' or "her" self. And If one comes across a guru that says otherwise I would suggest that one quickly runs the other way.

umm, apparently you did not get what I was trying to express....which btw. does not conflict with the saying you quoted. Also one could add to this subject by saying that the essence is using the form of the guru for its purposes, thus that is where (so to speak) that the water is already water... and putting a time or progression limit on being so does not really apply, for such limits only apparently apply.

I'd say that a merger, so to speak, as far as it is mentally and lovingly possible between two particular "beings" is a fine and important thing, but a True Guru will help one to the essence - (which is beyond measure) and not to a dependence upon them for essence or because to a student they seem to have more depth. (of essence) Thus freedom of Spirit unto Spirit is the true desire...

so Jonesboy I'd say that a "his" essence is the same as the essence and the essence is what knows that... already, as for any differences in states of being, well yes there are differences in the matrices that essence works or passes through which is what it sounds like to me you are concentrating on...

maybe as an individual mental perception, but I'll use the analogy that water is already merged with water, thus in that sense there is no merging of differences in being, it is already there so to speak.

a merging or joining (so to speak) of minds through direct telepathy is one thing, but when it comes to Spirit merging with Spirit that is already done or existant - thus no merging needed.

Although there was, "I would like to know what about Buddhism they disagreed about." from OP One has to mostly do their own research since answers from others are not answers they have basically proven (through experience) for themselves... one may also ask questions about meanings of recorded doctrine but that does not necessarily mean one will get the full meaning/answer through discussions about written doctrine. For an example here is a question for Buddhists based on an excerpt from Chapter 25 of the T.T.C. "...Silent and boundless, Standing alone without change, yet pervading all without fail, It may be regarded as the Mother of the world..." do Buddhists embrace such an idea as this or is it different from the core teachings of the historic Buddha?

The Self Atman (edit changing to the term "Self" which I mean to use in the rest of this thread) is not cultivated by any methods or through evolution, if it could be it would not be the Self. The eternal is already and always eternal. The Self can not be held by the reasoning mind. (or even by a mind of wisdom which points to it)

Note: a partial quote from and some commentary on the Isa upanishad by Swami Paramananda: "9. They enter into blind darkness who worship Avidya (ignorance and delusion); they fall, as it were, into greater darkness who worship Vidya (knowledge). 10. By Vidya one end is attained; by Avidya, another. Thus we have heard from the wise men who taught this. 11. He who knows at the same time both Vidya and Avidya, crosses over death by Avidya and attains immortality through Vidya. Those who follow or "worship" the path of selfishness and pleasure (Avidya), without knowing anything higher, necessarily fall into darkness; but those who worship or cherish Vidya (knowledge) for mere intellectual pride and satisfaction, fall into greater darkness, because the opportunity which they misuse is greater. In the subsequent verses Vidya and Avidya are used in something the same sense as "faith" and "works" in the Christian Bible; neither alone can lead to the ultimate goal, but when taken together they carry one to the Highest. Work done with unselfish motive purifies the mind and enables man to perceive his undying nature. From this he gains inevitably a knowledge of God, because the Soul and God are one and inseparable; and when he knows himself to be one with the Supreme and Indestructible Whole, he realizes his immortality. 12. They fall into blind darkness who worship the Unmanifested and they fall into greater darkness who worship the manifested. 13. By the worship of the Unmanifested one end is attained; by the worship of the manifested, another. Thus we have heard from the wise men who taught us this. 14. He who knows at the same time both the Unmanifested (the cause of manifestation) and the destructible or manifested, he crosses over death through knowledge of the destructible and attains immortality through knowledge of the First Cause (Unmanifested). This particular Upanishad deals chiefly with the Invisible Cause and the visible manifestation, and the whole trend of its teaching is to show that they are one and the same, one being the outcome of the other hence no perfect knowledge is possible without simultaneous comprehension of both. The wise men declare that he who worships in a one-sided way, whether the visible or the invisible, does not reach the highest goal. Only he who has a co-ordinated understanding of both the visible and the invisible, of matter and spirit, of activity and that which is behind activity, conquers Nature and thus overcomes death. By work, by making the mind steady and by following the prescribed rules given in the Scriptures, a man gains wisdom. By the light of that wisdom he is able to perceive the Invisible Cause in all visible forms. Therefore the wise man sees Him in every manifested form. They who have a true conception of God are never separated from Him. They exist in Him and He in them."

umm, in the paragraph I quoted the term jnana was first used to mean knowledge of "one's true nature" or the Self, thus not just theoretically/intellectually based type knowledge or jnana; thus as the term was first used nothing bad can come of such knowledge.. I get your point though which is also made in the Isa upanishad, I'm just trying to clairify what sounds like two different usages of the term in said paragraph.

"This is based on what has been observed. The Ashtavakra Gita says very succinctly (quoting the Upanishads). One who is ignorant (without Jnana) of one's true nature is doomed to suffer in this world of appearances. One who has knowledge (jnana) is in an even more precarious position. It is related to the old point about needing a raft only as long as one has to cross the river. After crossing the river, one has to let go of the raft. Many people are unable to do so, and therefore struggle with "Buddhism vs Hindusim vs Daoism vs etc etc"." Dwai Hello Dwai, I don't agree with parts of the paragraph above... For instance we could ask who or what is doomed or in a precarious position? - which the Self never was, is or ever will be in - thus in having unbreakable knowledge or (jnana/being) of Self >doubt and death are broken once and for all! Also True Gurus cross the river but many come back so to speak and pick-up the dharma raft they once used for reuse with students...and along that line many would agree there are pitfalls in mixing parts of one raft with another or with another, etc., which is different than vs another or another....

you might have your brother or a buddy copy parts of the Gopi Krishna book about certain of his painful symptoms which also match yours and how he moderated them, then carefully consider all that information and if any of it would be safe and useful for yourself?...If I remember correctly a lot of the info. about food sounded pretty safe like drinking a certain amount of or combinations of milk, a little rice, almonds and certain fruits at timed intervals - but I haven't read that book in 30 years so I'm not sure on any details. Good luck, btw. there are a few true Kundalini masters (who are not in every street corner kundalini yoga studio in the US) that might be able to help you besides any Deity that you may be asking for help, but that is another major subject of its own.

we can not touch her who is just out of reach, for she would not be bound.