Jeff

Dzogchen/Bon very definitely has transmission with connection to various beings. Both living and non-physical. Merging is a very hard word to use as your meaning of the word is not the same as others.

Yes, you have stated your position many times in this thread. We just simply disagree with regards to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus’s realization of the “father” and the resulting oneness, are vastly beyond any realization of a previous prophet or anything taught in the what is call the Old Testament. Moses saw things from an early astral level perspective.

Nice overview Creation. To me, the simplest definition of Tantra is any energy/light interaction with some being beyond your own local body-mind. In tantra, relative polarities are established (male-female, heaven-earth, yin-yang, transmission-reception), and with these polarities (like a battery needing positive and negative) energy flows.

Since people are interested in a restart to the thread, I think there is a critical component of the above quote that our previous discussions have not touched upon... What about... Trust? Do people think that Tantra is even possible without basic Trust? Trust in a spiritual partner, guru or divine being? And is the potential (and effective power) of tantra not driven by the level of that trust? The greater the “intimacy” or trust of letting in, the more powerful?

Thanks. While I agree with you about the scholarly aspects, this thread headed off in this direction partially relative to the concept presented around that one should start with the intellectual theory first and then sort of validate it through experience. As discussed, I thought it made sense to show different potentials with different theories. Advocating more child like exploration and play. What can be accomplished with Tantra can become “defined” by the mind. Like if one does not believe in the existence of a divine being, one cannot be helped by a divine being. And, such tantra becomes a meaningless mental exercise, as surrender to the divine is a key aspect to such practices.

Agreed. Tantra is effective the conscious application of energy/light and the associated flows.

If you are talking about a “light level dive”, it is different than Rigpa, but both share the “spontaneous perfection” concept in some form.

I agree that everyone should make their own choice on such things. But, in this thread we are talking about the difference in potential or how tantra plays out. Again, letting go of what? Are you now saying that we should not discuss difference between traditions? How and in the different ways that they work?

Yes, exactly. What I am attempting to describe would be the difference between direct introduction and direct immersion.

The difference is between having a dive and a stable light level dive. In a dive there is energy flow and “extra space”, but that is not the same as a light level dive. You would have to as Steve about his “being” and what he means. But, the main difference is that I saying that it is possible to realize the benefits (spontaneous perfection capability) of being a buddha, without being a buddha. It is not just about transmitting light, it is also about being able to receive light and then share and provide the support for it to others.

Yes, totally agree. This part of the fundamental difference. But, it is more like with a tradition having a “higher” revelation. The old wine is simple a perceptional subset of the new. With this broader realization the potential (and tools) are much greater. Like having a jet to fly instead of just being able to walk somewhere. It is impossible to walk across an ocean to a new land, but easy to fly there. Yes, most sections over time.

Ok, happy to post more in the PPD if people are interested. On your “quit being humble”, many here at the bums would more say that I am too arrogant. But, to your point, I may have spent too much time trying to put new wine into old bottles.

Thanks for sharing. I was sorry to see that you had edited your post as it had included some points that I thought were important and had wanted to respond to them. Oh well... Rather than getting caught up in defining my meaning of clarity, and how that compares to what you defining as the three aspects, In Dzogchen terms I am saying it is possible to directly share Rigpa with others. It is like there is a fourth aspect in which a divine being is not simply an arising that you earlier described, but also equal to. It is this additional aspect that Jesus referred to as “oneness in Christ” or at a dualistic level the ability to forgive/dissolve sins (issues and fears). The same spontaneous perfection is possible without the person themself being at the level of a Buddha. Jesus described it like this... John 14:10-17 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you askanything in My name, I will do it.15 “If you love Me, keepMy commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. That “helper” that dwells in you that has come is the additional aspect that I am trying to describe.

I do have a PPD and have a fair number of posts/threads in it. Just look for Jeff in the PPD section. Not really sure what you mean by a linear fashion for my view. Things like my past level descriptions are not a system, but more my attempt to describe the relative layers of universal mind/consciousness. More like exploration than any mapping to a tradition or system. I don’t have a self founded tradition, more various practices and techniques that I share with those interested. I tend to just directly show people rather than try to explain without the context. This to me is much more useful as I can simply energetically directly demonstrate what I mean for the person. Was their some specific area of interest or questions?

I understand what you are saying, but we seem to be talking about different things. You are the server, you are the operating system, you are the entire environment in which you access the server or the operating system. They are not separate things that you torch into slag. It is not about overwriting some store or trying to erase it, as all of that is of the (universal) mind. It is more like a quantum shift to “being”. Being all of it. Integrating it. The data is not destroyed and is still all accessible, but there is no need or desire. It is more like the energy structures (or data processing) that keep the disk focused on certain data aspects is freed up. The TTC describes it well when taking about an immortal/sage. If one is “being in the moment”, there is no worrying about issues and fears, there is no such thing as a separate mental state where you are in meditation or not. One is all of it.

Actually, I have had such discussions and it was interesting. Also, there are many different sects/levels of traditional beliefs depending on the Rabbi. I have even seen Rabbis beating themselves with rods as they wait for the return of David. The teachings of Jesus are pretty radically different than the Jewish Torah. There is actually much more similarity between the Koran and Torah, then the gospels.

Interesting concept. But earlier you seemed to state that you should ask a Jewish Rabbi about Jesus. Why would a Jewish Rabbi be a good source of information or view on Jesus? By being a Rabbi he has already effectively stated that he does not believe in Jesus. What about you? Are you Christian? Believe in Jesus?

To me their is no real separation between questioner and question. There can be no question without a questioner. Maybe it is a question of terms, as you seem to say that at a deep or clear enough level of meditation, the question of release does not even arise. But, my point is that there is no real difference between such a deep level of meditation and normal daily life. Such perceived differences are an artificial separation in mind. Effectively the difference between conscious and subconscious aspects of mind. Hence, when as you say things “bubble up”, but do not disturb and then drift away, that can simply be... Bubbled up from your subconscious and dropped back down, with no actual underlying clarity. Like a giant iceberg with the bulk of the issue/fear below the water line of conscious awareness. This last point is probably our biggest difference of view. My tradition/view more that one accepts it all. The “you” is everything. All of everything. There is no separation, but “clarity” is the key. And you only really know that it is “integrated” when it does not bubble up. In tradition terms, it would be like adding “Being Siva” from Kashmir Shaivism to your Bon tradition/view.

Well, I am definitely not what you would call an “institutional” Christian, but I do follow/respect the teachings of Jesus, and the concept of “Christ”. Being born of a physical virgin is not important or relevant to me, but born of the “Holy Spirit” or the energy/light significance is important/relevant. Resurrection (or physical ascension) of moving beyond the “earthly body” is also very important. Dying for our sins is also very important, but not in the institutional way most think. Sins are things that separate one from God, and those are issues fears. His sacrifice of his body for everyone, is more like a buddha sacrificing their Sambhogakaya to make a broader shift. Similar to how the TTC talks about becoming an “uncarved block” for all. His dying for everyone is like this... John 14:10-17 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you askanything in My name, I will do it.15 “If you love Me, keepMy commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. What he did/accomplished was vastly beyond and more elegant than simply dying for some sins. He established an entirely new potential...

In this specific context I was talking about the "light" or "light level". My point about "residing" is similar to my earlier comment in response to Steve.

And now that cool still water is in a pot being stirred... Oh well...

Thank you for the cool still water...

There is no contradiction, it is his "fulfillment" that creates new options and potentials "within the law". Thomas Aquinas explained it like this... "In his Summa Theologiae I-II qq. 106-109, a section of the Summa known as the Treatise on Law, Saint Thomas Aquinas discusses the Law of Christ as the "New Law". He argues that it was virtually contained in the Old Law, that is the Old Testament, as a seed but only brought to perfection by Jesus Christ who perfectly fulfilled it. The ends of the Old and New are one and the same, being subjection to God's order, but they are different in that the New Law makes attaining the end possible. Meanwhile, since all law ultimately has reference to Divine Reason governing all things, the New Law contains and helps the human being fulfill the Natural Law which prescribes acts of virtue. Thus, Aquinas defines the New Law as "chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ," but adds that it also "contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace." Therefore,"the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law". It is like a new world is created with his coming. A higher potential and realization. I am not attempting to integrate all teachings or Dharma's into one. My point was only that realizations (and the resulting teachings are not static). There is a living evolution of potential... And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. — Luke 5:36-39, KJV New wine (realizations/teachings) require new bottles...

Baffle them with bullshit...? You have to be kidding. Everyone can clearly read the thread above and my explanations. Also, please remember that this supposed to be at thread about Tantra... Have a good weekend...

Wise man. Also, I thought this thread was supposed about Tantra... And the beauty of that is that it cuts across all traditions with no need to get caught up in frameworks. Just be curious, play, and find the best ice cream to eat. Just dont get too attached to the ice cream, otherwise you know what happens...