Tradition and Lineages

[Informer]

I think that tradition and lineages are simply more attachements. Some of it is obviously created to keep those who are in power and to pass the power down the line.

 

Do you think that ones tradition or lineage makes them any better than anyone else?

 

Do you think it really makes them different from you or you from them?

[Sahaj Nath]

I think that tradition and lineages are simply more attachements. Some of it is obviously created to keep those who are in power and to pass the power down the line.

 

Do you think that ones tradition or lineage makes them any better than anyone else?

 

Do you think it really makes them different from you or you from them?

 

 

better? of course not. different? well yes, of course.

 

the subject seems a bit mired in semantics before the discussion has even begun. and both questions seem to miss the mark, which (i think) is "what is the significance or importance of having a lineage or tradition?"

 

language is imperfect, so the simple fact that you are able to call a tradition or lineage an "attachment" doesn't necessarily make it the same as someone's attachment to a house or a job or social status. tradition and lineages might be better understood as disciplines rather than objects. you commit yourself to a specific series of exercises and austerities, and the idea is that the quality of your unfolding, the level of your awakening, should be the same as that of the originator of that tradition. also, the support and grace that aids you in your process depends on the lineage you're plugged into. i'm oversimplifying this because i don't want to write a book here, but i often find myself in communion AND in communication with masters from my lineage, simply by sitting in meditation. i find the support to be invaluable.

 

some people use tradition and lineage interchangeably, but i don't think they are the same. can might co-exist seamlessly at times, but the grace of my lineage guides and empowers me even as i experiment with practices of multiple traditions.

 

 

now, maybe the question that should be asked is, "is it necessary to plug into a tradition and/or lineage for spiritual growth?" of course not. but does it make a difference? well yes, of course.

[Informer]

better? of course not. different? well yes, of course.

 

the subject seems a bit mired in semantics before the discussion has even begun. and both questions seem to miss the mark, which (i think) is "what is the significance or importance of having a lineage or tradition?"

 

language is imperfect, so the simple fact that you are able to call a tradition or lineage an "attachment" doesn't necessarily make it the same as someone's attachment to a house or a job or social status. tradition and lineages might be better understood as disciplines rather than objects. you commit yourself to a specific series of exercises and austerities, and the idea is that the quality of your unfolding, the level of your awakening, should be the same as that of the originator of that tradition. also, the support and grace that aids you in your process depends on the lineage you're plugged into. i'm oversimplifying this because i don't want to write a book here, but i often find myself in communion AND in communication with masters from my lineage, simply by sitting in meditation. i find the support to be invaluable.

 

some people use tradition and lineage interchangeably, but i don't think they are the same. can might co-exist seamlessly at times, but the grace of my lineage guides and empowers me even as i experiment with practices of multiple traditions.

 

 

now, maybe the question that should be asked is, "is it necessary to plug into a tradition and/or lineage for spiritual growth?" of course not. but does it make a difference? well yes, of course.

 

The point is questioning rather these attachements are healthy?

 

Are any attachements?

 

I believe we are really all the same, fundamentally.

[Sahaj Nath]

The point is questioning rather these attachements are healthy?

 

Are any attachements?

 

I believe we are really all the same, fundamentally.

 

 

yes, i got that from your original post. did you read my reply?

 

all attachments are not created equal. what about your attachment to the use of language to communication with others? now that i've labeled it an attachment is it now the same type of hindrance that spiritual masters have been referring to for millennia?

 

if your point is simply "attachments are bad," then maybe your lead-in post could have been different. but whatever. i was merely trying to elucidate the subject of traditions & lineages which you don't seem to have much of a grasp on.

 

but to grasp them might constitute an attachment, so maybe you shouldn't get it...?

 

i don't know. i'm out.

[RiverSnake]

Once upon a time a man came upon a great and mysteries forest. He was lost at first but with great ambition he traversed the forest overcoming great obstacles and remaining undaunted eventually created a map based on his experiences of the vastness of the forest.

 

By creating a map he could then put his knowledge of the forest on paper so that he would not forget and also share his knowledge with any lost travelers he may come across.

 

The map is a symbol for the spiritual tradition. It is meant IMO to be a guide, but it is not necessarily the actual forest. Each lost traveler may use the map as a guide but eventually develop his or her own feeling and skill for navigating the deep mysteries of existence and perhaps then create his own map.

 

-My 2 cents

 

Peace

[Informer]

better? of course not. different? well yes, of course.

 

the subject seems a bit mired in semantics before the discussion has even begun. and both questions seem to miss the mark, which (i think) is "what is the significance or importance of having a lineage or tradition?"

 

language is imperfect, so the simple fact that you are able to call a tradition or lineage an "attachment" doesn't necessarily make it the same as someone's attachment to a house or a job or social status. tradition and lineages might be better understood as disciplines rather than objects. you commit yourself to a specific series of exercises and austerities, and the idea is that the quality of your unfolding, the level of your awakening, should be the same as that of the originator of that tradition. also, the support and grace that aids you in your process depends on the lineage you're plugged into. i'm oversimplifying this because i don't want to write a book here, but i often find myself in communion AND in communication with masters from my lineage, simply by sitting in meditation. i find the support to be invaluable.

 

some people use tradition and lineage interchangeably, but i don't think they are the same. can might co-exist seamlessly at times, but the grace of my lineage guides and empowers me even as i experiment with practices of multiple traditions.

 

 

now, maybe the question that should be asked is, "is it necessary to plug into a tradition and/or lineage for spiritual growth?" of course not. but does it make a difference? well yes, of course.

 

How do you know that it is in fact a long dead master rather than a representation?

 

For instance, when people have near death experiences, when they see someone else there, it is usually described based on thier religion and beliefs.

 

A christian could see god or jesus but not buddha. Etc . . .

 

Words are not inherently attachements as far as I can tell. Yes it does make sense that tradition and lineages are similar in this manner.

 

These just seem like they could become quite strong, the same with culture.

[Informer]

Once upon a time a man came upon a great and mysteries forest. He was lost at first but with great ambition he traversed the forest overcoming great obstacles and remaining undaunted eventually created a map based on his experiences of the vastness of the forest.

 

By creating a map he could then put his knowledge of the forest on paper so that he would not forget and also share his knowledge with any lost travelers he may come across.

 

The map is a symbol for the spiritual tradition. It is meant IMO to be a guide, but it is not necessarily the actual forest. Each lost traveler may use the map as a guide but eventually develop his or her own feeling and skill for navigating the deep mysteries of existence and perhaps then create his own map.

 

-My 2 cents

 

Peace

 

Nice analogy thanks for sharing.

 

Might I throw in a monkey wrench?

 

Is that map that was drawn going to represent the forest and the path 10 years later?

[Kali Yuga]

Haha nice one Hundun. +1.

[RiverSnake]

 

Is that map that was drawn going to represent the forest and the path 10 years later?

 

The "map" is a reflection of ones consciousness. As the consciousness of the individual or culture continues to change so will the traditions.

 

As we continue to explore the mysteries of the forest our knowledge will continue to grow and be able to make more and more accurate maps.

[Vajrahridaya]

Some attachments are beneficial and others are not, it's all relative.

[Vmarco]

The point is questioning rather these attachements are healthy?

 

 

Yes,...IMO 100% unhealthy. Osho made a comment, "certainly it has given consulation, but consulation is not the right thing,...consulation is opium,...it keeps you unaware of reality.

 

Of course those who cling to Lineages for their identity will adamantly disagree. But they're just businesses, many set up like martial art businesses,...where no one can exceed the top guy.

 

I've also found that Lineages have polluted older principles in order to maintain their followings, and sustain their various interpretations.

 

I consider myself a Freethought Buddhist,...one who is guided by pre-Islamic invasion texts of Buddhism, and yet unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition or belief. IMO that is what Buddha wanted,...Shakyamuni said in the Kalama Sutra, "Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions." Buddha taught irreligion.

 

My advice,...be cautious of those who wish to step between you and your direct experience,...be cautious of anyone giving you a belief system.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vmarco]

Be wary of monists who claim to be Buddhists. Their bliss hides pride of Self, they have not seen the inner meaning of dependent origination and mis-interpret clear light as a Self.

 

Clear Light is not Self, but is the fulcrum upon which Self is. It appears that your fear of bliss is hiding your Self from your self,...and your diatribe of monism is ridiculous for anyone reading my posts.

 

Although duality's energy is a force that seeks union with Causeless, Undivided Light, such union is imposible. There can never, ever be a union of opposites. Any coming together of opposites simultaneously dissolves them.

 

In addition, those who seek imagined positives as if they can be separated from negatives, only diverts the clarity of wholeness. Wholeness is not realized through a union of opposites. Opposites cannot unite, and pairs of opposites cannot experience the unconditional. Opposites are conditions. How can conditions experience something that they are not?

 

Wholeness, as I use the term, is not a monist, Brahman, divine reality,...the so-called Oneness of monism, Brahman and divinity are illusions of duality. Both One and Many belong to duality. There is no One or Oneness in or of the Causeless, Clear Light that is the fulcrum upon which duality effects its motion.

 

Be wary of those who quote dogma.

 

"Clear light cannot be revealed by the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises, of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals." Tilopa

[Vajrahridaya]

Clear Light is not Self, but is the fulcrum upon which Self is. It appears that your fear of bliss is hiding your Self from your self,...and your diatribe of monism is ridiculous for anyone reading my posts.

 

Although duality's energy is a force that seeks union with Causeless, Undivided Light, such union is imposible. There can never, ever be a union of opposites. Any coming together of opposites simultaneously dissolves them.

 

In addition, those who seek imagined positives as if they can be separated from negatives, only diverts the clarity of wholeness. Wholeness is not realized through a union of opposites. Opposites cannot unite, and pairs of opposites cannot experience the unconditional. Opposites are conditions. How can conditions experience something that they are not?

 

Wholeness, as I use the term, is not a monist, Brahman, divine reality,...the so-called Oneness of monism, Brahman and divinity are illusions of duality. Both One and Many belong to duality. There is no One or Oneness in or of the Causeless, Clear Light that is the fulcrum upon which duality effects its motion.

 

Be wary of those who quote dogma.

 

"Clear light cannot be revealed by the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises, of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals." Tilopa

 

There is no causeless.

[ralis]

There is no causeless.

 

Exactly, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Your use of the term "is", denotes an absolute statement. However, "is" can never be absolutely defined as you so desperately believe.

 

http://www.transpersonal.com.au/mind/is-ness.htm

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Your use of the term "is", denotes an absolute statement. However, "is" can never be absolutely defined as you so desperately believe.

 

http://www.transpers...ind/is-ness.htm

 

Your response arose due to causes and conditions.

 

Even the experience of the unconditioned arises due to causes and conditions. The unconditioned is the realization arising from direct insight into dependent origination/emptiness. It is synonymous with untied. It is not a self existent.

 

The Five Reasonings of Noble Nagarjuna that Point

to the Essence (that is not there) by Refuting all Limits of Thoughts

 

 

Since it is beyond the nature of being one or many,

Suffering has no inherent essence,

Like the suffering in a dream, for example.

The suffering in bardo is also like this.

 

Since it does not arise from itself, other,

Both of them, or without a cause,

Suffering does not arise.

Present suffering is also like this.

 

Since the result does not arise

From existing at the time of the cause,

From not existing, from both, or neither,

Suffering therefore does not arise.

 

From one cause, neither one nor many results arise.

From many causes, neither one nor many results arise.

Therefore, all things are without arising.

Suffering, too, is like a dream.

 

Since like a moon in water, a rainbow, and a movie,

It is the mere appearance of interdependent arising,

No phenomenon exists through possessing an essence.

The extremes of samsara and nirvana,

of permanence and extinction are transcended.

.................

 

none the less...

 

Just as the grammarian makes one study grammar,

A Buddha teaches according to the tolerance of his students;

Some he urges to refrain from sins, others to do good,

Some to rely on dualism, other on non-dualism;

And to some he teaches the profound,

The terrifying, the practice of enlightenment,

Whose essence is emptiness (not light, not dark) that is compassion

 

Nagarjuna (c.100 - 200 AD)

 

The realization of "clear light" is not an absorption nor is it making an absorption of only light a fulcrum.

 

p.s. Vmarco is an eternalist.

[ralis]

Your response arose due to causes and conditions.

 

Even the experience of the unconditioned arises due to causes and conditions. The unconditioned is the realization arising from direct insight into dependent origination/emptiness. It is synonymous with untied. It is not a self existent.

 

The Five Reasonings of Noble Nagarjuna that Point

to the Essence (that is not there) by Refuting all Limits of Thoughts

 

 

Since it is beyond the nature of being one or many,

Suffering has no inherent essence,

Like the suffering in a dream, for example.

The suffering in bardo is also like this.

 

Since it does not arise from itself, other,

Both of them, or without a cause,

Suffering does not arise.

Present suffering is also like this.

 

Since the result does not arise

From existing at the time of the cause,

From not existing, from both, or neither,

Suffering therefore does not arise.

 

From one cause, neither one nor many results arise.

From many causes, neither one nor many results arise.

Therefore, all things are without arising.

Suffering, too, is like a dream.

 

Since like a moon in water, a rainbow, and a movie,

It is the mere appearance of interdependent arising,

No phenomenon exists through possessing an essence.

The extremes of samsara and nirvana,

of permanence and extinction are transcended.

.................

 

none the less...

 

Just as the grammarian makes one study grammar,

A Buddha teaches according to the tolerance of his students;

Some he urges to refrain from sins, others to do good,

Some to rely on dualism, other on non-dualism;

And to some he teaches the profound,

The terrifying, the practice of enlightenment,

Whose essence is emptiness (not light, not dark) that is compassion

 

Nagarjuna (c.100 - 200 AD)

 

The realization of "clear light" is not an absorption nor is it making an absorption of only light a fulcrum.

 

p.s. Vmarco is an eternalist.

 

 

Is this your interpretation? Movie?

[Vmarco]

[ralis]

Hmmm,..Is what is, Is. Is; , Is Is a noumenon? A phenomenon? the elusive unknowable "thing-in-itself"?

 

How can the Self beyond the skandhas,...the Self that is realized when Unborn Awareness is uncovered,...be explained? What is the Self that gets off the Wheel of samsara, and ends cycles of rebirth? The term "exist", as in the Self that exists, doesn't work for me, because "to exist" implies to stand alone,...and Self does not, from my observations, do that, at any level I'm aware of..

 

Non-Mahaparinirvana Buddhism teaches that where truth is, the self is not,...yet this is discussing the skandha self,...not the Self beyond the illusion that comes through the skandhas. Some Buddhists believe there is a permanent Self of a union of form and formlessness (emptiness), but that is ridiculous,...there can never be a union of opposites. Whenever opposites come together they cancel themeslves out.

 

Charles Coulomb’s object-ive point of view, although seemingly appropriate for the attraction and repulsion of electrical charges, is fully misleading. Like conditions actually attract like conditions. From my view, two magnets cancel out the end poles of any point of union.

 

 

Buddha said, "Really it is not that there is no self." Which may be intrepreted differently by every Lineage Holder. However, the question above is, "how did you arrive at that conclusion?"

 

There is an Undivided Light (best described in cerebral-centric terms as that which is realized at the so-called speed of light,...when there is no longer any distance, any time, nor need for speed), which cannot be perceived through any appendage of the skandhas.

 

From all my observations, this Light is Causeless, Unchanging, Eternal, Still, and nothing is beyond it. That which can glimpse beyond the skandhas can observe this Undivided Light,...this direct observer is not a self in any traditional way of self, but, for the most part, a self that simultaneous comes as it goes,...in other words, observes beyond objects. The observer that directly views Undivided Light is not a phenomenon dependent upon duality, because it is directly related with Undivided Light, which is not a phenomena.

 

For example, look at flower,....

http://www.thetaobum...nd/page__st__80

 

When you come back into youself, simultaneously as you go, you and the flower are one,...two illusory phenomenon with the same interdependent origination,...however, when this observing Self is viewing Unconditional Light, the relationship is different.,...because the observer self is not observing a phenomena.

 

A being attached to sentience goes out, stops at a perceived object, seeing it as separate from "thinking self." The Conscousness beyond the 6 senses, goes out, and simultaneously comes back in, as they go out, so that the object never was an object separate from Consciousness. Then there is the observer of Undivided Light,....there is no going out, there is no coming in. There is this Is. No questions. No wants. No desire. No sentient feelings. No Gods. And yet cognizance of life itself.

 

I came across an interesting book (free on the internet) called Secret of Light

http://www.archive.o...fLight_djvu.txt

 

Although it is unforntately written through a religio-scientific focus, it is nevertheless quite informative about the subject of what I call Undivided Light, and the MahaSiddhas called Clear Light.

 

This book is also essential for anyone wanting a fuller spectrum understanding of Wu Chi and T’ai Chi.

 

V

 

 

I read 'Science and Sanity' by Korzybski which is an excellent commentary on non Aristotelian logic and everything Robert Anton Wilson wrote before his passing. Korzybski and Wilson both have commented on the use of is and isness which incorrectly denotes absolute values. Most English speaking persons are clueless when it comes to understanding how Aristotelian logic impacts their thinking. I couldn't help but remember Bill Clinton's remarks. LOL!

 

 

[LBDaoist]

I think that lineage plays an important role in cultivation and practice. A master passes energy to their student. That energy is the essence of the art. The essence itself has been cultivated and passed down (in some cases) over a thousand plus years... transmitted from master to student over and over again. The essence is the interrupted refinement of the life force that has been cherished, pondered and improved by every person who has dedicated their lives to the art.

 

Now in the culture we live in, where everything is for sale, it is hard to comprehend this. What makes teacher A better than teacher B? They both show you how to do motions. They both call what they do tai chi, or qigong, or what have you. We live in a culture of excess and competing products. So many people focus on the "best" or "most effective" or blah blah blah blah blah. Those who do not have a teacher want to tell themselves the teacher or the lineage does not matter. Those have had the opportunity to experience the transmission of a 1000+ year old essence and all of the love, and discipline and encouragement and refinement that has gone into it... they know differently.

 

Qigong is not about a set of movements. It is about a way of life.

[Informer]

I think that lineage plays an important role in cultivation and practice. A master passes energy to their student. That energy is the essence of the art. The essence itself has been cultivated and passed down (in some cases) over a thousand plus years... transmitted from master to student over and over again. The essence is the interrupted refinement of the life force that has been cherished, pondered and improved by every person who has dedicated their lives to the art.

 

Now in the culture we live in, where everything is for sale, it is hard to comprehend this. What makes teacher A better than teacher B? They both show you how to do motions. They both call what they do tai chi, or qigong, or what have you. We live in a culture of excess and competing products. So many people focus on the "best" or "most effective" or blah blah blah blah blah. Those who do not have a teacher want to tell themselves the teacher or the lineage does not matter. Those have had the opportunity to experience the transmission of a 1000+ year old essence and all of the love, and discipline and encouragement and refinement that has gone into it... they know differently.

 

Qigong is not about a set of movements. It is about a way of life.

 

Interesting outlook.

 

What makes you think the energy you are transmitted is any different from the energy I cultivate?

 

How is the age relevant at all? How would one honestly determine the age of the energy?

 

Evidently you have felt something profoundly different that you don't think you can do on your own, but do you know for a fact you can't?

[Vmarco]

I read 'Science and Sanity' by Korzybski which is an excellent commentary on non Aristotelian logic and everything Robert Anton Wilson wrote before his passing. Korzybski and Wilson both have commented on the use of is and isness which incorrectly denotes absolute values. Most English speaking persons are clueless when it comes to understanding how Aristotelian logic impacts their thinking.

 

I've don't recall ever reading anything specifically on Aristotelian logic, although I've certainly written about it.

 

How I use the term Aristotelian logic, is as an object-ive centered predisposition towards all inquiry arising from the belief in One,...which is fundamently why our nature denying Christian calendar begins with 1. In addition,....IMO, the concept of monotheism has been sustained through Aristotelian logic and the belief in rational numbers.

 

Understanding Undivided Light arises from Zero, not One. Undivided, Clear Light is beyond One in all ways. This Zero is bookkeeping place-number,...but the Spiritual understanding of Zero. In Aristotelian times, when even the mention of zero or what they called, unnatural numbers, would bring death, like they did to Hippasus, for suggesting irrationals.

 

St. Augustine claimed that he came to Christ not through any Christian scriptures but by reading Plato. Plato believed in a ratio based, Aristotelian logic. St. Thomas refers to Aristotle as not just any philosopher but with the emphatic article as ...'The Philosopher'... and then goes on to prove 'logically' the existence of God through Aristotelian logic.

 

Undivided Light cannot ne recognize through Aristotelian logic,...Undivided Light cannot be recognized through any belief system,...especially ones that cling to the skandhas for their identity.

 

V

[Jetsun]

My understanding of the function of tradition and lineage is that you first transfer your attachments from your family and society to the lineage and if the lineage has many masters this gives you faith in doing so otherwise it is just a massive leap in the dark. But then a good lineage will in the end cut you off from all attachments including the tradition itself, so it's like a gradual training process of letting go and cutting away until there is nothing to grasp and nowhere to rest your head. If the lineage doesn't do that last step then it is worthless imo and may just be some guys getting kicks from having people look up to them.

[ralis]

I've don't recall ever reading anything specifically on Aristotelian logic, although I've certainly written about it.

 

How I use the term Aristotelian logic, is as an object-ive centered predisposition towards all inquiry arising from the belief in One,...which is fundamently why our nature denying Christian calendar begins with 1. In addition,....IMO, the concept of monotheism has been sustained through Aristotelian logic and the belief in rational numbers.

 

Understanding Undivided Light arises from Zero, not One. Undivided, Clear Light is beyond One in all ways. This Zero is bookkeeping place-number,...but the Spiritual understanding of Zero. In Aristotelian times, when even the mention of zero or what they called, unnatural numbers, would bring death, like they did to Hippasus, for suggesting irrationals.

 

St. Augustine claimed that he came to Christ not through any Christian scriptures but by reading Plato. Plato believed in a ratio based, Aristotelian logic. St. Thomas refers to Aristotle as not just any philosopher but with the emphatic article as ...'The Philosopher'... and then goes on to prove 'logically' the existence of God through Aristotelian logic.

 

Undivided Light cannot ne recognize through Aristotelian logic,...Undivided Light cannot be recognized through any belief system,...especially ones that cling to the skandhas for their identity.

 

V

 

Korzybski's writings are useful for understanding the limitations of language and how language does not accurately describe any phenomenon. Aristotle claimed that the essence of the object is contained in the definition of what is being defined.

 

The most egregious use of Aristotelian logic would be in the creation of absolute religious belief systems that are authoritarian rule based.

 

http://www.generalsemantics.org/store/

[Birch]

Korzybski's writings are useful for understanding the limitations of language and how language does not accurately describe any phenomenon. Aristotle claimed that the essence of the object is contained in the definition of what is being defined.

 

The most egregious use of Aristotelian logic would be in the creation of absolute religious belief systems that are authoritarian rule based.

 

http://www.generalsemantics.org/store/

 

Thanks Ralis! When I'm bored I think I shall add '-ness' or '-ity' as a suffix to describe the true essence of things. Hahaha. I've read too much of that kind of philosophy I think. I was going to start a thread on why some "spiritual" folks seem to prefer lofty sounding old-school phrasing. I mean I know some things are hard to express but when we get into 'spiritual' territory, why the need to talk like a two-thousand year old book? Could it be that our language has cut us off (even more) from some things?