Jeff

Hi Andi. I do not mean to be rude, but what you are describing is residing at the 3rd chakra (sense of self) and the beginning of an opening at the heart (4th chakra). It is kind of like your mind is opening to a new level of consciousness, but don’t yet have the energy to support it. That “loneliness” is sort of your ego/sense of self freaking out. The key at this level is not more self reflection, but about connecting more into the world. Play with children, get a puppy, maybe do some charity work in your community. Engage, love and care about others. Open your heart wide. if you are looking for spiritual practices, my recommendation is that you focus more on energy movement ones, then simple forms of quiet meditation. Again, I apologize if I have overstepped with my comments. Best, Jeff

While I agree with your quote, directly manifested is not at all the same as a merge (at least the way I describe it). Directly manifested would be a complete overwrite of the light body, and to directly manifest Siva at that level would be like replacing the entire universe. But, to your point in general, I agree that if you actually have the ability to merge, then for those with the capacity to "hold it" there is some potential danger. Real divine beings will only give you what you can handle, but some beings, like Angels, are more like infrastructure components with no auto shutoff. Almost totally fried myself with an Angel once, and that manifestation would have been good for at least one Sun (not trillions and trillions ).

In the Hindu forum then yes it is, as all is union. But, move it is the general forum, and it begins to potentially break down...

To me that sounds like better suited to a new topic, as it does not really relate to guru yoga or merging.

Guess I don't see how that is really any different than what we are already discussing? Also, don't you have to even define what a deeper state of being is to discuss it?

Fair enough on terms. The relevant point is the stages as described in the chapter. We are talking about a "sage" that has already become/realized the "valley of the universe" and become "uncarved", but there is still a being that takes/uses the role that is necessary. All showing that there is still the ability/potential of differentiation.

Fair enough, we simply disagree on the interpretation. But, my point was really on the explanation on how a "merge" is theoretically possible. As I said in an earlier post, it is possible in Taoism and mystical Christianity, and not really in the buddhist framework. As Steve and others have stated, such direct sharing of "taste" is not possible/available in their tradition. Whether one thinks there is merit or not to a merge is potentially up to debate, but as everyone who has experienced it directly knows, it is definitely possible.

No, we are talking about different things. Buddhist views and the concept of "Rigpa" are not part of the Tao Te Ching, they are different frameworks. Your concept of rigpa, more relates as a form of being the "stream of the universe". A ruler immortal ( block that has been carved and then used by the immortal who has become the valley of the universe) is very different. Such an "immortal" does not really exist in buddhism. The closest approximation is found with the coming of the Twin Tower buddha in the Lotus sutra.

Now you are touching on how it is possible to do a merge. But while there is no personal distinction in that non-dual space, there is the “potential” for it that gives the duality that we live in. As, the Tao Te Ching states in the first part of chapter 28... TWENTY-EIGHT Know the strength of a man, But keep a woman’s care! Be the stream of the universe! Being the stream of the universe, Ever true and unswerving, Become as a little child once more. Know the white, But keep the black! Be an example to the world! Being an example to the world, Ever true and unwavering, Return to the infinite. ... The important part relevant to the discussion is “know the white” (nondual), “but keep the black” (dualist separation of individual beings), and then you can “be an example to the world” (merge part of that). Also, important to be “ever true and unwavering” (don’t get caught up in those other beings issues/fears).

Yes, it is fair to say that I am trying to draw the distinction. Closeness, love, support, etc... are all very important and valuable in relationships, but not what I meant. Maybe think of what I am trying to describe as the energy "underneath" or driving the emotional aspects you are describing. In our broader the discussion, you could probably just simplify it down to whether it is possible to share an actual "direct taste" or not. In a way trying to define how much a guru can "help" in your lineage/tradition. Thank you again (and everyone else) for the discussion. To me this is a very interesting topic. p.s. I also have no problem with the New Age comment. My thoughts on all of this stuff are pretty radical.

Thank you again very much for your responses. So by energetic connection you meant close, supportive and loving relationship? Like an open and sharing connection that is how we should all naturally relate (but often don't) and not some sort of "energetic transmission" or any sort of "mind to mind" or "energy body" to "energy body" thing?

You seem to be saying something different than Steve regarding no energy connection. Is the "transmission" simply the knowledge/teachings of a specific group/lineage? Or do you get more "stuff" like the blessings you say that will appear? Like what kind of things are "blessings"?

Thank you very much for your responses, but they raise more questions... You stated that..."There are also many non-verbal, non-conceptual transmissions that occur between teacher and student" and also "Yes, guru yoga is very energetically direct and is all about connecting." So what is being "transmitted"? And are you also saying that a buddhist teacher forms an energetic connection to the student? What is the purpose of such a connection if it is not possible to help with the realization?

Getting back to the original OP, does anyone think that Buddhist guru yoga does anything directly/energetically/connecting/merging? Or, is it more about reading, discussing, individual practices and having a good teacher/guru example to follow? Thanks.

Agree on the concept of built in protections to some extent. The problem is really bad when people try to use drugs or other substances in an attempt to bypass those built in protections. Then you can get into some really serious issues, and maybe find some truly "negative" stuff. But, in general, such techniques are very advanced and one cannot really do them unless they "know".

There are many different views on the meaning of the Tao Te Ching, and you can find some very good discussion by various members in the TTC forum. But, I would say that it is not really possible to read beyond logic, as such meaning is found in the mind and mind is subject to your logic and frameworks. But, it is possible to feel more. Try reading, taste it and then try to take it into your heart. Trust in “God” or the universe itself for the understanding. Over time you will first begin to notice a little vibration or pressure at the heart, when you feel that, trust your instinct. Simply let it flow...

As Fa Xin touches on, there is no such danger with “merging”, but a true merge is extremely rare, and I think everyone is confusing what I call connecting with merging. With connecting, I would agree that there are potential risks. Even when connecting with divine beings (Buddha’s or immortals) they are perceived as also having “wrathful” sides. Blissful when you release the issue/fears in working with the being, wrathful feeling when you hold on to it. Additionally, with connecting one often is accessing some Spirit or other still ego based being.

Your examples highlight the issues of why simply reading the “written” text is insufficient and not effective for many traditions. Words can become meaningless without having a teacher to show you what they mean. For many, the TTC is nothing but an intellectual philosophy, rather than an enlightened spiritual treatise.

Thank you very much for sharing. But to your knowledge it is all oral or written learning activities by the student (and or teacher)? You would agree with CT’s description, and there is really not any “merging” like activities as the OP suggests? Direct introduction to you means explain and talk about, not really directly show or immerse? Again, I do not mean any disparagement with the questions, just trying to show the differences.

A further point on “merging”. From the first part of chapter 27 in the Tao Te Ching... TWENTY-SEVEN A good walker leaves no tracks; A good speaker makes no slips; A good reckoner needs no tally. A good door needs no lock, Yet no one can open it. Good binding requires no knots, Yet no one can loosen it. Therefore the wise take care of everyone And abandon no one. They take care of all things And abandon nothing. This is called “following the light.” ... To be able to merge, one must be willing to take care of enery one and abandon no one. There is still a wise one who cares, and there are still other sentient beings to help. If one ceases (abandons), there is no such thing possible as merging. As the TTC says, follow the light...

Seems like you are the one making all of the assumptions here. I am making no judgement about yidam practice or its effectiveness (actually I think it I very useful), my point was that you can’t learn to “carry a body and soul while embracing the one” (or merge) by reading a book or simply following oral instructions. If you reread what I actually read, you will clearly see that the perceived “vagueness” of the TTC writing is because it is not simply an oral/written instruction. I even gave you an analogy regarding not being able to learn how to swim by simply reading a book.

Totally understand your confusion. The challenge is that they are not meant as simply oral instructions. Written commentaries are meaningless documents in trying to explain things like “carrying the body and soul, while embracing the one”. One cannot carry the body and soul, while embracing the one like with your example of imagining some Yidam in your mind until your mind is totally fixated on it. It is like trying to learn to swim by reading a book and then imagining water.

I would agree with the premise that the concept of “merging” is not the same as or really in any way directly related to Buddhist guru yoga. Merging (as I would define it) is not even really possible within the conceptual framework of Buddhist guru yoga. Additionally, if there are a B and A, then one is really more talking about what I would call “connecting” (or energy connection). If one is truly interested in the concept of merging and how it is possible/works, I would recommend more the Tao Te Ching or mystical Christianity as a framework for discussion. Here is an excellent example of one who definitely knows what merging is... Chapter 10 - Tao Te Ching Carrying body and soul and embracing the one, Can you avoid separation? Attending fully and becoming supple, Can you be as a newborn babe? Washing and cleansing the primal vision, Can you be without stain? Loving the people and ruling the country, Can you be without cleverness? Opening and closing the gates of heaven, Can you play the role of woman? Understanding and being open to all things, Are you able to do nothing? Giving birth and nourishing, Bearing yet not possessing, Working yet not taking credit, Leading yet not dominating, This is the Primal Virtue. Merging requires carrying the body and soul, while embracing the One. Attend fully and don’t get separated. And, you will find that then playing the role of the woman and being open to all things is way harder than you think. Jesus calls it jointly suffering and being a co-redeemer in Christ.

Thanks, and very well said as describing the relative progression related to a B (perspective) in this discussion.

When a teacher/guru in your tradition introduces you to a “state of Rigpa” (or primordial purity) what does he or she do? Is it simply an intellectual description for the person?