Is This The Truth About Kundalini?

[三江源]

Yes, you are loved here.

 

Yes, awareness is non-conceptual, but still arises dependently. First of all, to be aware, you have to have consciousness and consciousness of an individual arises in each moment within the chain of 12 links of dependent origination as kind of a fermentation of the 5 main elements mixing and bubbling, which is a non-physical dimension. This happens so fast in each moment on such a complex level from non-physical through the physical, that there isn't really a first cause in the linear sense, it's more like a constant circle or sphere. In an enlightened being there is also the 12 links of dependent origination but it's flipped from an ignorant chain to an aware chain of inter-causation. Awareness is non-conceptual, but is still dependently originated and not an independent source of everything, it's only an independent source of your own experience of Samsara or Nirvana. But, since you are dependently originated as well... you can't say this proves solipsism.

 

 

 

What you say in your explication of your beliefs is what I feel without having learned it or read it. You are very articulate in a lovely clear way, thankyou for articulating and explaining.

 

Having an aware chain of inter- causation... as an enlightened being has, is it possible for you to say more about that?

[Vajrahridaya]

It's a matter of temperament, or if you prefer, of aestethic resonance ( I envision more and more the different paths are different songs...)

(My own comentary:the path of love is not exclusive of some tradition: for example the Bushmen of the Kalahari speak about the Big Love. I don't "follow" a path, simply my heart is expanding according to an organic, spontaneous rhtyhm...a good metaphor would be an "attuning", in fact the Bushmen and most of the primordial traditions speak about "getting your song/s". Also, I don't resonate with the Abrahamic traditions, but I feel strongly the truth of the following words. Other way to say it: "The poet only see similarities, where others only see differences". To retrieve the poetic eyes of the child is a great spiritual accomplishment...)

 

Yes, but Infinite Love is not the goal of Buddhism, this is only one of the 4 immeasurables that are cultivated in most all spiritual traditions, but does not lead to liberation from unconscious recycling. Buddhism has a different and much more refined goal than merely being a bliss/peace bomb. Being a bliss/peace bomb is only one of the results of Buddhism, like it is in other traditions, but most traditions stop there. Buddhism goes further.

 

 

 

At the time of the experience I had no conceptual idea of what I am saying now. There was only God. Now, reflecting back upon it, I see that I experienced truth simultaneously as love and light.

 

This is what happens in most paths, they make a relative experience ultimate.

 

In Buddhism, supreme Reality is referred to as Dharmakaya.

 

No, Dharmakaya is not the ultimate reality, it's the ultimate insight. This is a common mistake. Dharmakaya is the realization of seeing the emptiness of dependent origination. It is considered a constant in the sense that dependent origination has always been empty, weather you see it or not, but that is dependent origination. It's not a self existing reality in the sense you are considering. There is a much subtler treatment of the term in Buddhism. Dharmakaya is basically a synonym for emptiness but in terms of the result of realizing emptiness.

 

And Dharmakaya, or Being-as-such, is seen as the unity of emptiness and bliss, sunyata and Mahasukha.

 

The experience of liberated bliss in this sense is the insight of the union of awareness and the emptiness of consciousness and things, which is a dependently arisen awareness.

 

It's not a self arisen in an ultimate sense, but rather a relative sense.

 

The Truth, Dharmakaya, Absolute, or whatever name we give it, is the origin of all paths, and is the home where all paths lead. Spiritual devotion leads to this consuming truth; so does awareness. Usually the path of devotion and love is theistic, for it is easier to devote oneself to a Bigger Reality. The lover and the Beloved are separated so that the longing of devotion will unite them again. At the beginning of the path the individual is not aware of the absolute truth, and that it is All. The Truth is apprehended only at later stages, or in peak experiences. The path of awareness, on the other hand, leads to the same Truth, but it is of the nature of awareness that it does not need a bigger reality to be aware of. It starts by awareness of our present experience and environment. So the path of awareness is usually non-theistic, as in Buddhism."

http://www.ahalmaas.com/Extracts/truth.htm

 

I understand this view very well as I used to write pages worth on it at E-Sangha. If a person actually has this realization, then they are transcending Theism, and I can see how one can use the concepts of Theism to self transcend. One can say, Brahma (creator), Vishnu (sustaner), Shiva (destroyer ) all happen in every moment and that the experience of their mutual emptiness is Brahman. But, these concepts are generally not treated as such in Hindu Theism. As in Shaivism, Abhinavagupta still gives the power of creation to the mysterious Shiva as a first cause. The difference between the Buddha approach is subtle. It's not just words and their meanings, it's the experience they lead to, or are expressing which is different as well. We also use Bhakti in Vajrayana, but we use it in a much clearer sense of understanding as we are experiencing devotion to the path of Bodhisattva compassion and the Buddhas that realize this. We are not emptying all our emotions and concepts into a non-conceptual ground, which just ends up hiding these impressions in a state of bliss for one to experience a long lived god realm through, but will turn out to bite us and become the basis for a lower incarnation because we haven't emptied the basis. The subtle differences are deep and true. You are taking up the Dharmkaya as a ground of being, instead of the awareness of the emptiness of dependent origination. Dharmkaya is not an ultimate truth, but rather an ultimate insight into things. Dharmakaya does not have inherent existence in Buddhism. It is the realization of the ultimate truth of things though, as in emptiness, then one experiences luminosity. We are not merging into light, we recognize that things still happen and that enlightenment is an endless journey and that light itself is not an ultimate ground of being either, but just an equally empty aspect of the sphere of reality.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, you are loved here.

 

 

 

 

What you say in your explication of your beliefs is what I feel without having learned it or read it. You are very articulate in a lovely clear way, thankyou for articulating and explaining.

 

Awwww...

 

Having an aware chain of inter- causation... as an enlightened being has, is it possible for you to say more about that?

 

This is the circular chain of interdependence for a Samsarin:

 

With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise

With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises

With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise

With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise (This happens both on physical and psychic planes)

With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises (both physical and psychic)

With Contact as condition, Feeling arises

With Feeling as condition, Craving arises

With Craving as condition, Clinging arises (This clinging can be both of form and without form in higher bliss states)

With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises

With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises

With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise

 

For the enlightened you are turning ignorance into wisdom or awareness, thus you are using the rest of the aspects as a vehicle of teaching as being a Nirmanakaya or body expression of the awareness of the nature of dependent origination, or Dharmakaya, your energy being that of endless enjoyment or Sambhogakaya. While even transcending the non-awareness of dying and rebirth. As in, you have mastered it so are in control of where it goes and how it plays out. You are aware of your personal 12 links, so they don't rule you anymore, you utilize it for the sake of endless sentient beings. You are illuminating your own personal sphere or 12 links as explained above of inner experience and outer contact.

 

Here's Wikipedia on dependent origination: Pratityamsautpada

 

It's actually a really good presentation with lots of quotes from various texts as well as how it's treated in the different turnings of the wheel from Hinayana to Dzogchen.

[Birch]

"teaches the enlightened to be better in their enlightenment."

 

So enlightenment is not enough? There's yet another carrot? Oy-vey

[3bob]

Hi 3Bob,

 

Its true i enjoy reading Vaj's experiences and i know so do a few others here. Its also true i enjoy reading of many Taoist practitioners' experiences as well. Maybe that's because i do not have a constricted view of things. Why should i, when all that potentially does is stifle the unlimited colors that go a long way to painting this glorious rainbow we call 'existence'.

 

The less-than-appropriate term you chose (unmoderated urination?) does not befit you, so its quite disheartening to hear of such coming from a someone i have grown to like and respect, just i have suddenly grown to like and respect Manitou for showing the integrity and strength to rise above what i would normally say 'the small self'... what she has demonstrated is spiritual maturity, a quality that none of us can have enough of.

 

There is so much more that we can take from here if only we can learn to understand deeper why we feel disagreeable with certain thoughts/individuals in the first place. The common mistake seem to rest in how we project that it's always the external things that are faulty... however, upon further investigation, based on honest appraisal, we will usually realize where the real source of the dislikes is, and once we are ok with this realization, it makes the road to freedom so much more wide and traversable.

 

CowTao,

What you call or reckon as a "less-than-appropiate term" can be repeatedly found and or verified in a great many of VJ's posts; which btw break the Buddhist teaching as laid out in the previous quote, thus how is it you find such as being enjoyable? (regardless of any of his occasional, facinatingly twisted and pompous know-it-all declarations about various states or schools)

 

Imo you have by-passed the Buddhist teaching I quoted eariler and its import as related to certain goings on here. Further, no number of rationalizations or platitudes will ever have the guts to face or explain away an inconvenient truth. I for one (and several others here) are tired of being pissed on by VJ and also seeing him getting away with pissing on others. Btw, his co-opted misuse of "Buddhism" in attempts to do so doesn't make it any more acceptable, true or excusable.

 

Om

Edited December 8, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

"teaches the enlightened to be better in their enlightenment."

 

So enlightenment is not enough? There's yet another carrot? Oy-vey

 

For Buddhism, yes. Which is it's uniqueness. It's not so much a carrot as it is a path to show that you've got the carrot and now this is how you peel it and share it with others, endlessly, not just now, but all of now and all it's variances.

[Ulises]

Those aren't the type of Buddhists I'm interested in Ulises. That is your view and that is the type of Buddhism you associate Buddhism with. But that's not where I place my mind when I think of true Buddhism and true Buddhist practice. Those are just confused individuals who will use any excuse to gain power over other people. Just like when I think of true Christians I think of St. Francis, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila or Lisiuex, or Miester Ekhart... or the Desert Fathers who wrote the Philokalia. When I think of Islam, I don't even think of Muhamed. I think of Rumi, Mansur Mastana, Rabia, Hafiz, etc. Even though I value these peoples contributions to humanity. I don't think that they had the same level of realization as the Buddha. They had high realization, but not the same level of result body, before or after life. Not the same attainment of the "tools" for the sake of endless sentient beings.

 

I have experiences, and these experiences show me that the goal of all spiritual traditions are not the same. These experiences go beyond being trapped in a meat suit. Most Shamanistic paths believe that there is a single agent, a single being of mysterious intelligence behind everything that you need to get in touch with and merge with. I am aware of this level of experience and used to interpret my spirituality under this assumption. I don't anymore.

 

The Buddhist view is more refined and doesn't make intellectual, experiential, or emotional excuses for ignorance.

 

 

These experiences go beyond being trapped in a meat suit

This phrase of disgust for embodiment speaks volumes

 

 

 

Buddhism is not like all world religions. It's different, both relatively and ultimately.

that is exactly the way a fundamentalist speaks...

 

It seems that the Buddhist in you has devoured to the Buddha in you. I'm sorry.

I leave it here

Edited December 8, 2010 by Ulises

[Vajrahridaya]

These experiences go beyond being trapped in a meat suit

This phrase of disgust for embodiment speaks volumes

 

 

 

 

Your interpretation of what I said is entirely your own and has nothing to do with what I intended.

 

This meat suit is made of all sorts of things, but mainly the coagulation of the elements of non-awareness and consciousness or sentience. It can be a tool to realize the inner causes of suffering, then become an expression of this awareness.

 

If you are trapped by it's devices and identify with it, then it is merely a meat suit. It entirely depends upon where you are coming from with it. It can be filled with liberated bliss, or merely the cycling of pain and pleasure. Even if filled with the awareness of liberated bliss, it will still undergo the cycle of pain and pleasure, but just from a different perspective of mind.

 

Buddhism is not like all world religions. It's different, both relatively and ultimately.

that is exactly the way a fundamentalist speaks...

 

I am a fundamentalist. Definitely. Buddhism is fundamentally different from all other paths. I utilize tools from other paths but from a Buddhist perspective. I do the I-Ching for instance and if I were to ever do Chigong or something, I would do it from a Buddhist perspective. Though I'm more into Yantra Yoga which is a moving form of yoga utilizing the breath along with the movements in specific ways.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[joeblast]

Not for nothin but...searching out a quote and being able to expound off the top of one's head show entirely different levels of understanding and realization of the subject matter. The dynamic approach considers the context of this conversation - the quoted approach is taking another context and affixing it to this conversation.

 

Unfortunately this thread has derailed into a conversation about views in Buddhism, accurate or otherwise, since a few had to make the discussion one of semantics.

[Vajrahridaya]

Not for nothin but...searching out a quote and being able to expound off the top of one's head show entirely different levels of understanding and realization of the subject matter. The dynamic approach considers the context of this conversation - the quoted approach is taking another context and affixing it to this conversation.

 

Unfortunately this thread has derailed into a conversation about views in Buddhism, accurate or otherwise, since a few had to make the discussion one of semantics.

 

I really meant to talk about kundalini from the point of view of mystery and de-mystification. It's all fun and games, as I am having fun being given the opportunities to clarify "the view" even from those who are being opposing.

 

I appreciated your earlier thoughts in this thread by the way Joe, I just didn't feel the need to comment on them.

[Ulises]

Just one comment, Vajrahirday:

To be ecstatic is not my goal. It's to become what I am .

Again: "meat suit" is not a subtle, refined,profound expression: it's brutal.

Reveals a profound dissociation from body and feelings.

Reading, for example, Charlotte Selver: yes, that is subtle, refined and profound (with a strong Zen flavor, by the way...)

http://www.sensoryawareness.org/store.html#writings

 

I don't "oppose" Buddhism. In fact, I'm deeply influenced by Zen and Dzogchen.

I simply have a innate allergy to fanatics of any kind. As the Zen teachers say, you stink of Buddhism...

I bow to your Buddha nature, not to your Buddhist fanaticism.

[Vajrahridaya]

Just one comment, Vajrahirday:

To be ecstatic is not my goal. It's to become what I am .

Again: "meat suit" is not a subtle, refined,profound expression: it's brutal.

Reveals a profound dissociation from body and feelings.

 

No, it really doesn't, that is your take. What is your body made of? Flesh, blood, bone, future worm food. It's made of funky smells, and has a waste disposal system. That is one side of the body, on the other, it channels sentient consciousness, which can utilize this meat suit as a deep and profound vehicle of wisdom, thus making it the Nirmanakaya expression of Buddhahood.

 

That's why I said, "my experiences transcend this meat suit," as in, the base level of self and physical awareness.

 

You are reading your own "shit" into the things I say and thinking it's "the truth."

Edited December 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Ulises]

No, it really doesn't, that is your take. What is your body made of? Flesh, blood, bone, future worm food. It's made of funky smells, and has a waste disposal system. That is one side of the body, on the other, it channels sentient consciousness, which can utilize this meat suit as a deep and profound vehicle of wisdom, thus making it the Nirmanakaya expression of Buddhahood.

 

That's why I said, "my experiences transcend this meat suit," as in, the base level of self and physical awareness.

 

You are reading your own "shit" into the things I say and thinking it's "the truth."

 

 

You are reading your own "shit" into the things I say and thinking it's "the truth."

I say the same about you.

This "meat suit" (it's a horrendous expresion) is a prodigy, an exquisite, delicate organism, a Sleeping Beauty that awakes her hyper-complex subtlety with the kiss of a loving awareness. Only the poisonous view of a monastic life-denying psichopatic perception can say such things..

Enough. Now I know your position, view,etc.

OK. it works for you, great.

Now I really leave it.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Ulises

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya:You are reading your own "shit" into the things I say and thinking it's "the truth."

I say the same about you.

This "meat suit" (it's a horrendous expresion) is a prodigy, an exquisite, delicate organism, a Sleeping Beauty that awakes her hyper-complex subtlety with the kiss of a loving awareness. Only the poisonous view of a monastic life-denying psichopatic perception can say such things..

 

Both have their validity. What you say is true as well, in fact more true and more of a liberated perception. It's also poetic and actually I know plenty of monks who think this way about their body on the one hand, as well as recognize that most people wear the body as a manifestation of their ignorance.

 

I was saying that my experiences transcend the view of this body being merely a meat suit. Your view of a monk or monastic as being life denying and psychopathic is really, wow! Negative and life denying to me. Your view on the Buddhas teachings must be really skewed, yet you are inspired by Dzogchen and Zen? I don't think it possible for you to have much understanding of what Dzogchen and Zen actually teach. Your perspectives are too black and white as revealed by the littering interpretations of both my words and things that Buddhas have said within various contexts, which you entirely miss the points of.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[joeblast]

I really meant to talk about kundalini from the point of view of mystery and de-mystification. It's all fun and games, as I am having fun being given the opportunities to clarify "the view" even from those who are being opposing.

 

I appreciated your earlier thoughts in this thread by the way Joe, I just didn't feel the need to comment on them.

its cool, I dont have validation attachments...for the most part

 

 

everything you said has been perfectly clear to me...but then again I've had the fortune of hearing a couple others expound well, in person

 

_/\_

 

 

U...

some things too plainly said are taken in a distorted fashion! semantics...the body is both an exquisite, delicate organism - as well as but a meat suit - the question is, can you see that they're both and neither? denying it is a meat suit in some fashion is clinging to a view. trying to grasp firmly many concurrent worldviews and proclaiming facets of a certain one to be "incorrect" in whatever fashion is an exercise in dualistic thinking - instead of being offended by the context, what's the aversion to seeing clearly through and being accepting of the context in which it was presented, as opposed to having a grudge against the context and lashing out accordingly since it is in some way at variance with purported conglomerate in the mind?

 

take a chill pill, you arent being "talked down to"

[Simple_Jack]

Hey Kate, I know this isn't related to the thread, but what I'm about to type can give you one example of what VJ was saying.

 

This is a verse from Zen master Lin-Chi:

 

"Going along with the flow without stopping to ask how

True awareness shining boundlessly,

describing it to them

Detached from forms, detached from names,

people don't accept it

After the sword of wisdom has been used,

we must hurry to hone it"

 

This is an excerpt from Working Toward Enlightenment explaining the last part of the verse: "....Zen master Lin chi is instructing us that before we have illuminated mind and seen true nature, we must reflect back and examine our selves at all times, to reverse the workings of thought and cultivate samadhi, and not let false thoughts arise. For a person who has already been enlightened, after using his meditative accomplishments, he must immediately take them back and hone them further."

 

Hope this helps you understand better what he meant.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Simple_Jack

[joeblast]

Working Towards Enlightenment is a priceless book. Most anything you find from Nan, Huai Chin is

[goldisheavy]

Chakras are not visualized. When you feel in an emotion you will FEEL them in your body's chakras. There is nothing imaginary about it.

 

What you fail to understand is that everything is a play of consciousness or mind. Even these words or the feelings of your body, such as the pressure on your butt when you sit, seeing cars roll down the street, and so on. All such sensations are the play of awareness. It's described like a blind man seeing rainbows, or like a deaf man hearing an orchestra. That's exactly how the world works, put simply. It's a bit more complicated than that, because experiential patterns have levels and structure based on your beliefs, and this structure can be discussed in more detail, and that's where it can get complicated. But if you step back from all that, the simple and honest truth is that all experience bar none is nothing more and nothing less than a play of awareness. This applies to dreaming and to waking experiences equally.

 

So depending on how profound your understanding of imagination is, you can say that yes it's all imaginary. Kundalini is imaginary but so is this computer here.

Edited December 8, 2010 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

Both have their validity. What you say is true as well, in fact more true and more of a liberated perception. It's also poetic and actually I know plenty of monks who think this way about their body on the one hand, as well as recognize that most people wear the body as a manifestation of their ignorance.

 

I was saying that my experiences transcend the view of this body being merely a meat suit. Your view of a monk or monastic as being life denying and psychopathic is really, wow! Negative and life denying to me. Your view on the Buddhas teachings must be really skewed, yet you are inspired by Dzogchen and Zen? I don't think it possible for you to have much understanding of what Dzogchen and Zen actually teach. Your perspectives are too black and white as revealed by the littering interpretations of both my words and things that Buddhas have said within various contexts, which you entirely miss the points of.

 

 

Another post elevating your position on top of the Buddhist heap!

 

After all the critiques I have made in response to your frozen narrative, I think you have never figured out what my real point is. I am not going to tell you. If you pay attention, it may become apparent.

 

Here are a few key points to consider:

 

1. Everything you have written in regards to your defense of Buddhism, is only information. Why? What is missing?

 

2. In regards to your insistent belief that Dzogchen is somehow culturaly specific, it is not. The term is. However, Dzogchen is just another term for the primordial or natural state.

 

3. To prove my point, here is something Norbu said in retreat in 1989. "What is the difference between a statue of a Buddha and an ash tray"? Can you answer it? BTW, I was there, sitting in the front row and I still have the recording.

 

4. My point has everything to do with how one reads!

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralis

[ShaktiMama]

Been very busy. Just dropping in to see if I can add anything relevant to the kundalini thread. Not really other than to the initial statement "spiralling kundalini is real." Yes, kundalini spirals just like a galaxy or water or wind spirals.

 

there is only Love,

Susan

 

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

1. Everything you have written in regards to your defense of Buddhism, is only information. Why? What is missing?

 

Your understanding, when you read at least.

 

2. In regards to your insistent belief that Dzogchen is somehow culturaly specific, it is not. The term is. However, Dzogchen is just another term for the primordial or natural state.

 

You haven't read many Dzogchen texts, so you really have no idea. It's not culturally specific, it's specific to complete obliteration of any sort of clinging, including to an ultimate state, or ground of being. Dzogchen is Buddhist. Rinpoche has said, "I am Buddhist and I teach Buddhism."

 

"What is the difference between a statue of a Buddha and an ash tray"?

 

Ultimately, both are equally dependently originated and empty of inherent existence. Practically speaking, one is for cigarette butts and ashes and the other a reminder of one of the greatest human beings to have ever walked the Earth and his teachings. So, practically speaking, one form is closer to the nature of things than the other, ultimately speaking, both are empty of any inherent ability to bind or liberate.

 

Dzogchen speaking... they are both just the play of the energy of sentient beings.

 

4. My point has everything to do with how one reads!

 

Right back at cha bud.

[Vajrahridaya]

This was for ralis eyes only.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Your understanding, when you read at least.

 

 

 

You haven't read many Dzogchen texts, so you really have no idea. It's not culturally specific, it's specific to complete obliteration of any sort of clinging, including to an ultimate state, or ground of being. Dzogchen is Buddhist. Rinpoche has said, "I am Buddhist and I teach Buddhism."

 

 

 

Ultimately, both are equally dependently originated and empty of inherent existence. Practically speaking, one is for cigarette butts and ashes and the other a reminder of one of the greatest human beings to have ever walked the Earth and his teachings. So, practically speaking, one form is closer to the nature of things than the other, ultimately speaking, both are empty of any inherent ability to bind or liberate.

 

Dzogchen speaking... they are both just the play of the energy of sentient beings.

 

 

 

Right back at cha bud.

 

 

He said there is no difference between the two. Also my point is do you write to spread information? Or wisdom?

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

He said there is no difference between the two.

 

Only ultimately. They are both empty, dependently originated, and the play of the energy of sentient beings... ultimately. Well, the last one is both ultimately and relatively (Dzogchen has only one truth in it's conceptual elaboration) but not practically, because practically they are different.

[goldisheavy]

You are reading your own "shit" into the things I say and thinking it's "the truth."

I say the same about you.

This "meat suit" (it's a horrendous expresion) is a prodigy, an exquisite, delicate organism, a Sleeping Beauty that awakes her hyper-complex subtlety with the kiss of a loving awareness. Only the poisonous view of a monastic life-denying psichopatic perception can say such things..

Enough. Now I know your position, view,etc.

OK. it works for you, great.

Now I really leave it.

 

The view of renunciation is not to be underestimated. I would say that anyone who promotes a positive view of the body doesn't really sit at the same level of insight as someone who promotes the view of renunciation.

 

It's only after you completely exhaust every merit you possibly can glean from the view of renunciation that you can take up the ornamental beauty of phenomena as a view. For most people who are deeply, profoundly attached and in love with their bodies, the view that the body is a beautiful thing is a completely spiritually counter-productive and binding view. The only people who can beneficially consider the body to be a beautiful ornament are those who have matured their renunciation to utmost perfection and who hold to absolutely nothing in this world, including their own bodies, their family and nothing else.

 

I will say without hesitation that for the vast majority of people renunciation is the skillful and expedient view that leads to liberation and insight development, not to mention siddhis if you care about such things.

 

Renunciation is a powerful medicine and like with all medicine, overdoing it can be bad for you too. But considering that most of us don't suffer from aversion to our bodies but instead suffer from a super-strong attachment to our bodies, it's a good risk to take compared to lazily viewing the body as a wonderful thing.

Edited December 9, 2010 by goldisheavy