Tradition and Lineages

[Vajrahridaya]

Lama Ken McLeod addressed this at a weekend teaching I attended 22 years ago. He said something to the effect of; that the idea of any teacher reading one's mind and telling one what practice to engage in or not would be ludicrous. Ken is well qualified to make such a statement in that, he was one of the first Westerners to participate in a six year retreat in France, under the direct guidance of Kalu Rinpoche.

 

Uh hu... anyway.

 

A Master can ask you questions, which is what ChNNR does, and he see's about you through your answers. Also yes, Masters can read minds and see through you and your projections, but you have to be open to it... a mind melding does occur between a master and a disciple when there is openness between the two.

 

I don't really care what Ken Mcleod say's. ChNNR has said this, and so have plenty of other teachers of antiquity.

[Vajrahridaya]

I've only been teaching for a few years, but I've already had students come up to me and say, "When you told me X a long time ago, I didn't get it. But now that I've been training for a few years, it makes sense."

 

Often times, a teacher is presenting lessons. The students are too focused on what they think they want and they fail to absorb what they are being given.

 

Yes. There must be openness and humility, but this type of trust is not necessarily built in a day. Sometimes there is an immediate recognition, or sometimes it takes a few hours. But in terms of spiritual traditions, there is a kind of magic that occurs between a disciple that is ready and a master that is truly self liberated.

 

People who are too caught up in their, "Critical thinking egos" will just project, project, project, but will walk away from the teaching with only more justification for their own baggage. It's amazing sometimes what I see people understand from the very same talk that I've attended.

[Vajrahridaya]

In my mind the benefit of learning from a lineage holder is that they are not figuring out. Someone else in this thread asked (and I'm paraphrasing) "How do you know that what you're doing is different than what I'm doing?"

 

I do not have to consider that question. That question does not matter. Working with a lineage, I can look back on a long history of people who have been pursuing a single goal and getting results from it. They are not wondering what will happen when they practice. The results are there and documented. The exercises for opening the channels are codified. The techniques for circulating the qi are codified. The philosophy of the art has already manifest through the practice and the teaching.

 

At the end of the day, it comes down to being healthy and helping others be healthy.

 

My own experience went something like this: I had an idea about qi, it seemed logical to me. I did some reading and developed what I thought was some understanding. I did some practices on my own, breathing exercises, physical exercises, etc. I found a teacher. A few years later, I realized that most of what I thought based on what I had read was wrong. I spent a long time unlearning what I thought I knew. I came to appreciate Lao Tzu's saying, "The way that can be spoken of is not the true way."

 

The teaching is not knowledge. It is not a concept that you get. It is a way of being. On one level it is like a vibrational frequency. Anyone who has experience with healing sounds will understand. Each organ has an optimal resonance. The body as a whole has an optimal resonance as well. For lack of a better term, a lineage holder, a true teacher is someone who is calibrated to the right frequency. Yet the teacher does not own that frequency. It is the frequency of life. A lineage does not own the frequency.

 

Anyone can find the frequency at any given time. What a teacher and what a lineage provide is calibration. A teacher tunes people to the right frequency.

 

This is beautifully put... I don't have to say anything now.

[ralis]

 

People who are too caught up in their, "Critical thinking egos" will just project, project, project, but will walk away from the teaching with only more justification for their own baggage. It's amazing sometimes what I see people understand from the very same talk that I've attended.

 

 

I guess you understand correctly and others don't?

[ralis]

Uh hu... anyway.

 

A Master can ask you questions, which is what ChNNR does, and he see's about you through your answers. Also yes, Masters can read minds and see through you and your projections, but you have to be open to it... a mind melding does occur between a master and a disciple when there is openness between the two.

 

I don't really care what Ken Mcleod say's. ChNNR has said this, and so have plenty of other teachers of antiquity.

 

You are treating these teachers as if they are infallible. When I first met Norbu in 1989, he had just started teaching in English. There were definitely some problems with his diction. That in and of itself can lead to great misunderstanding. Speaking a language and understanding it are vastly different.

 

Even on this forum there are many problems with communicating well, even though most here are native English speakers. Many times your writing style comes across as stilted and biased. If native English speakers have difficulty communicating with each other, then foreign speakers with rudimentary English skills have greater difficulty in communicating outside of their native language. Even with a translator.

 

If as you say, Tibetan Lama's can read one's mind, and in this case I assume you mean thoughts, then there is the problem of a language barrier.

[Sifu Roy]

I have been very fortunate to have trained under the teachers that I have. Now that my teacher has past away it is very hard to find a teacher with her caliber of teaching. Some of the students feel that they are the next Grand Master just because they are the eldest student. She never pasted down certificates of achievements to show where you are on the totem pole. Great Masters never had to pat themselves on the back or tell people how great they are. The quality of students produced from any linage will show how good it is. Most true teachers take extra care who they are going to teach and what. I didn't even become a student until I trained under her for 5 years, that was a very short time for a new student. That was only because I trained under one of her other students before her. Linage is a good thing if they are a real student or not. My teacher would always tell me (I think every time I trained from her) every day Loyer, 12hrs every day for 50 years and now, 24hrs and then smiled. I still haven't achieved this.

 

How good of a student were they when training from that Linage?

[Vajrahridaya]

You are treating these teachers as if they are infallible. When I first met Norbu in 1989, he had just started teaching in English. There were definitely some problems with his diction. That in and of itself can lead to great misunderstanding. Speaking a language and understanding it are vastly different.

 

If you were open, you'd get a message that is much deeper than language and verbal understanding. The problem is, is that generally, most do need a good intellectual understanding first before opening.

 

Also, everyone is fallible through the body, but the inner state of a Master is perfect, thus they are considered a Mahasiddha, which means great perfection, this is not an outer attainment. It cannot be detected by those with an outer sense of focus either.

 

 

If as you say, Tibetan Lama's can read one's mind, and in this case I assume you mean thoughts, then there is the problem of a language barrier.

Oh ralis...

 

No, not thoughts... there are much subtler, more intimate depths of psychic reading than mere thought reading, that's for amateurs. Haven't you ever gotten to the point in your meditation where you see that all your thoughts are based upon subtler paradigms of fast moving images, emotional references, tied up with intentions?

 

You need some more transmissions! Thought reading is for slow pokes.

[Vajrahridaya]

How good of a student were they when training from that Linage?

 

Exactly. A great Master is only so due to the fact of having been a great student, and still is a great student of the universe.

[Seth Ananda]

 

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.

 

V

 

{my Bold addition to his quote}

 

This one sentence of yours shows a major flaw in your understanding of Buddhist thought.

1. Form and emptiness are not opposites.

2. Formlessness has nothing to do with emptiness.

3. Emptiness is simply the nature of everything, either form or formlessness.

 

The reason everything is empty is because each thing that arises, comes about in a way that is dependent on countless other causes. Thus it is said to have no 'Inherent' or self existing nature, and is therefore not ultimately real.

Not Ultimately real means Empty.

 

Empty does not mean some kind of void, or space, or potential or any quality what so ever whatsoever. It is simply the true nature of all phenomena. It is not the opposite of form in any way, but the true nature of it...

[Seth Ananda]

 

Once you think you've found a state that transcends phenomena, you've merely found another aspect of phenomena.

 

Bingo!

[ralis]

 

Also, everyone is fallible through the body, but the inner state of a Master is perfect, thus they are considered a Mahasiddha, which means great perfection, this is not an outer attainment. It cannot be detected by those with an outer sense of focus either.

 

 

 

 

You are claiming there are contemporary Mahasiddhas?

[Vajrahridaya]

You are claiming there are contemporary Mahasiddhas?

 

Most definitely.

[ralis]

If you were open, you'd get a message that is much deeper than language and verbal understanding. The problem is, is that generally, most do need a good intellectual understanding first before opening.

 

Also, everyone is fallible through the body, but the inner state of a Master is perfect, thus they are considered a Mahasiddha, which means great perfection, this is not an outer attainment. It cannot be detected by those with an outer sense of focus either.

 

 

 

Oh ralis...

 

No, not thoughts... there are much subtler, more intimate depths of psychic reading than mere thought reading, that's for amateurs. Haven't you ever gotten to the point in your meditation where you see that all your thoughts are based upon subtler paradigms of fast moving images, emotional references, tied up with intentions?

 

You need some more transmissions! Thought reading is for slow pokes.

 

I need more transmissions? I only have about 100. LOL!

 

My reason for critiquing what you write would be that your posts contain much hyperbole and platitudes. Further, you take the liberty of doctrinal belief systems and create either/or fallacies. If you want to live in an Aristotelian universe with only two possible outcomes that is your business. However, either/or reasoning, imposes limits to any real communication, therefor creating a barrier to the total experience of life.

[Vmarco]

 

This one sentence of yours shows a major flaw in your understanding of Buddhist thought.

1. Form and emptiness are not opposites.

2. Formlessness has nothing to do with emptiness.

3. Emptiness is simply the nature of everything, either form or formlessness.

 

The reason everything is empty is because each thing that arises, comes about in a way that is dependent on countless other causes. Thus it is said to have no 'Inherent' or self existing nature, and is therefore not ultimately real.

Not Ultimately real means Empty.

 

Empty does not mean some kind of void, or space, or potential or any quality what so ever whatsoever. It is simply the true nature of all phenomena. It is not the opposite of form in any way, but the true nature of it...

 

That is a most odd way of looking at things from a non-dualistic framework, although may make sense within a dualistic framework. Form and Emptiness, as is "form is empty, and empty is form", are indeed opposites of the same cyclical thing,...just as hope and fear are opposite, but interconnected,...thus, if one wished to dissolve all fear, all hope must simultaneously dissove with it.

 

The Heart sutra is about how to recognize duality's reality for what it is,...emptiness is the unformed potential of form,...it's the cycle of form when not form. As I mentioned, instead of me posting a book length explaination of how duality works, I suggested the on-line book Secret of Light by Russell, which, although permeated with religio-sciential jargon, sums up the nature of duality quite accurately, and somewhat compatible with Buddhism (less the theism of course).

 

V

Edited August 4, 2011 by Vmarco

[Seth Ananda]

Form and Emptiness, as is "form is empty, and empty is form", are indeed opposites of the same cyclical thing,...just as hope and fear are opposite, but interconnected,...thus, if one wished to dissolve all fear, all hope must simultaneously dissove with it.

 

V

 

No as far as I understand, that is not Buddhist teaching, but a typical mistake most westerners make when approaching emptiness teachings.

 

Emptiness can not be the opposite of anything because it is not a 'thing', but rather it is the nature of things.

 

If you said the nature of the sun was Fiery heat, you would not then mistakenly believe that fiery heat was the opposite of the sun.

 

It is not a thing that can be added or subtracted from some thing ever at any time, as you can not remove some things nature.

 

Quoting from some book on light is not going to make emptiness suddenly into a void, or a phenomena that is the opposite of existence.

 

Here are the 11 points on Emptiness:

 

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

Thats from this great Link:

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

That will help you understand properly the actual meaning of emptiness as currently accepted by most schools of Buddhism.

 

If you disagree, please get a good grip on the Idea, for the sake of understanding the perspective of the other Buddhists here. That will go a long way in clarifying our conversations, and make sure that we each know what the other means when we use the same word.

 

Blessings.

[ralis]

Most definitely.

 

What are your criteria for judging a Mahasidda? Names please? I will not accept any arguments based on belief systems or doctrine.

Edited August 5, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I need more transmissions? I only have about 100. LOL!

 

My reason for critiquing what you write would be that your posts contain much hyperbole and platitudes. Further, you take the liberty of doctrinal belief systems and create either/or fallacies. If you want to live in an Aristotelian universe with only two possible outcomes that is your business. However, either/or reasoning, imposes limits to any real communication, therefor creating a barrier to the total experience of life.

 

You've never understood much of what I said, as to say this about my posts is absolutely unfounded. I am far from a black and white thinker. I have found over the years that you project a meaning onto my posts that doesn't exist outside of your own mind, and this is evidenced by the fact that others do not see in my posts what you see, and no, it has nothing to do with your education.

[Vajrahridaya]

What are your criteria for judging a Mahasidda? Names please? I will not accept any arguments based on belief systems or doctrine.

 

You'll find any proof you can to discredit anything I will say... so, I'm satisfied to leave you with your own assumptions.

[3bob]

Bingo!

 

Bingo? How about fart?

 

You just refuted the most important teaching of the Buddha (which without all the rest is in vain) by not following through beyond all fixations on all this secondary stuff, and don't take my word for it, Good luck.

 

Om

Edited August 5, 2011 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Bingo? How about fart?

 

You just refuted the most important teaching of the Buddha, which without all the rest is in vain.

 

But don't take my word for it, Good luck.

 

Om

 

Don't worry... we don't.

[Vajrahridaya]

by not following through beyond all fixations on all this secondary stuff.

 

Om

 

realizing emptiness reveals no strict dualism between, "primary" and "secondary" stuff.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vmarco]

Quoting from some book on light is not going to make emptiness suddenly into a void, or a phenomena that is the opposite of existence.

 

Here are the 11 points on Emptiness:

 

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

Thats from this great Link:

That will help you understand properly the actual meaning of emptiness as currently accepted by most schools of Buddhism.

 

...for the sake of understanding the perspective of the other Buddhists here. That will go a long way in clarifying our conversations, and make sure that we each know what the other means when we use the same word.

 

 

 

Please don't take offense, but your comment about quoting from books,...and quoting from books was precious.

 

Ok,...I see you have a bizarre idea about emptiness, and believe that idea because "most schools" accept it,...Yes,...it's very easy to get caught up in some groupthink, or media-ted through self-proclaimed authorities.

 

For me, I could not, in all honest call myself a Buddhist,...but I do see myself as a Freethought Buddhist,...that is, I have a very broad view of sutras and Mahamudras.

 

My understanding of emptiness comes from various sutras and Mahamudras,...and not Traditions, Lineages, or any current Buddhist or non=dual business.

 

Form is empty, and empty is form,...through that understanding according to the Heart sutra, one can recognize a Bodhisattva,...thus one reason I consider that text important,...the other reason is that in the Heart sutra Buddha says, the most important thing, known to all Buddhas in the three periods of time, is, Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!...

 

That is the definition of Tathagata,... "to go, to come, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming, where enlightenment is welcomed" Any other definition is misinformation,...just ask Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje.

 

In the context of the Heart sutra,..

 

Emptiness is a substance unseen

Emptiness is the unwinded aspect of divided light

Emptiness is not an absolute

Neither emptiness nor form exists on its own

Emptiness is the Vidyadhara of wisdom

From emptiness all form arises

Emptiness has no "i"

Emptiness does not feel, for it is the cycle of unwinded form

Emptiness is the yin, that cycles into yang

Emptiness is the unseen aspect of duality

Only through the understanding of Emptiness, does one uncover the threshold of non-duality

 

Yes,...this is not a competition,...if you have already uncovered your light,...fine,...if not,...why not? Can we share ideas without them offending someones beliefs, lineages, or personal knowledge of great enlightened beings.

 

It always comes down to this,...how honest can one be? Two fully honest people of dissimiliar backgrounds could realize a level to do miraculous things in a short amount of time.

 

What an adventure honesty would be.

 

V

[3bob]

Don't worry... we don't.

 

Is that a "we" fart?

Edited August 5, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

realizing emptiness reveals no strict dualism between, "primary" and "secondary" stuff.

 

clever sounding but again missing the mark.

[Vajrahridaya]

My understanding of emptiness comes from various sutras and Mahamudras

 

But your understanding is not supported by an in depth study of the teachers of Mahamudra and Sutra that you claim to adhere to. You really just lack study and proper guidance.

 

In the context of the Heart sutra,..

 

Emptiness is a substance unseen

Emptiness is the unwinded aspect of divided light

Emptiness is not an absolute

Neither emptiness nor form exists on its own

Emptiness is the Vidyadhara of wisdom

From emptiness all form arises

Emptiness has no "i"

Emptiness does not feel, for it is the cycle of unwinded form

Emptiness is the yin, that cycles into yang

Emptiness is the unseen aspect of duality

Only through the understanding of Emptiness, does one uncover the threshold of non-duality

 

 

I'm very honest when I say you haven't seen emptiness directly. It's very clear from this post that you still cling to a subtle obscuration of formless self reification.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya