Jhanas

[Jeff]

"Or, said another way... you "realize" that meditation and normal daily activities are really the same thing".

 

Jeff, what you said above isn't quite what I was trying to get at although it sounds along similar lines. I was trying to allude to the connections between the various Jhanas (as more or less described) and also the connection between the "beyond" and the Jhanas... Thus because of such connections one can not really separate one of them out as unimportant or as illusion.

3bob - I think that is a really good point and very true for all us along the path. Each new "depth" uncovers a new level of understanding that changes our perception of what we previously "believed" to be true. Many times I have experienced or noticed something that I thought to be profound, only to later realize that I was just blindly feeling part of the proverbial "elephant".

 

 

The point is sexual bliss is generated by the body and not the mind.

The "body" is an aspect of (or mapping into) universal mind. All that is percieved is of universal mind (or if you prefer...buddhamind).

[RongzomFan]

The "body" is an aspect of (or mapping into) universal mind. All that is percieved is of universal mind (or if you prefer...buddhamind).

 

universal mind is just some New Age stuff.

[Jeff]

 

universal mind is just some New Age stuff.

If you disagree on a topic, it would be helpful if you would explain your logic (or position) for disagreeing. Or, if you prefer, feel free to quote sutra (or teachings) in defense. Making statements like "new age" may have some meaning to you, but is not relevant to the discussion.

 

For the readers of this thread who are interested in the concept of universal mind (or buddhamind), I would highly recommend the Lankavatara sutra. If explains it in very detailed and consise terms.

 

(edit - iPad issue)

Edited September 13, 2013 by Jeff

[Jeff]

I'm not a Buddhist but here is something Buddhist doctrine has to say on the subject of Jhanas:

 

How the Blessed One Passed into Nibbana

"9. And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he attained to the cessation of perception and feeling.

 

10. And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away." "No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."

 

11. Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the first jhana.

Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana, the Blessed One immediately passed away".

 

Thus if one is a Buddhist it would seem these are rather important since the Founder spent his last moments involved with same.

3bob,

 

What do you think is the deeper meaning of this story? Why would it be important for Buddha to "revisit" jhana's?

[RongzomFan]

the Lankavatara sutra. If explains it in very detailed and consise terms.

 

 

You must be using some crazy translation.

[3bob]

Since I'm not a Buddhist teacher (obviously) I can only speculate to whatever degree... saying that I feel that the key meaning is in the very last sentence that was quoted, in other words what passed away (using and per the "four fold negation") and what did not? (otherwise imo everything the historic Buddha did would have been in vain)

[Jeff]

 

 

You must be using some crazy translation.

If we are going to discuss a topic, it would be helpful if you would be familiar with the material. Off the cuff resposes, just demonstrate lack of understanding on the topic. The Sutra goes into great depth on the topic in many sections. Here is a brief quote that relates to the discussion in general...

 

 

Chapter V

 

The Mind System

 

Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, what is meant by mind (citta)?

The Blessed One replied: All things of this world, be they seemingly good or bad, faulty or faultless, effect-producing or not effect-producing, receptive or non-receptive, may be divided into two classes: evil out-flowings and the non out-flowing good. The five grasping elements that make up the aggregates of personality, namely, form, sensation, perception, discrimination, and consciousness, and that are imagined to be good and bad, have their rise in the habit-energy of the mind-system,- they are the evil out-flowings of life. The spiritual attainments and the joys of the Samadhis and the fruitage of the Samapatis that come the wise through their self-realization of Noble Wisdom and that culminate in their return and participation in the relations of the triple world are called the non out-flowing good.

 

The mind-system which is the source of the evil out-flowings consists of the five sense-organs and their accompanying sense-minds (vijnanas) all of which are unified in the discriminating-mind (manovijnana). There is an unending succession of sense-concepts flowing into this discriminating or thinking-mind which combines them and discriminates them and passes judgement upon them as to their goodness or badness. Then follows aversion to or desire for them and attachment and deed; thus the entire system moves on continuously and closely bound together. But it fails to see and understand that what it sees and discriminates and grasps is only a manifestation of its own activity and has no other basis, and so the mind goes on erroneously perceiving and discriminating differences of forms and qualities, not remaining still even for a minute.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Jeff

[RongzomFan]

There is nothing about universal mind.

 

And there is no reference, page number, book title.

[RongzomFan]

If we are going to discuss a topic, it would be helpful if you would be familiar with the material. Off the cuff resposes, just demonstrate lack of understanding on the topic.

 

You don't think I'm familiar with this material?

 

I have no clue what this conversation is about. But I do warn against splitting up Buddhism into different schools and say well that's that one part of school and we don't teach that when in fact Buddhism is a whole. Different cultivation methods and teachings give to each school but yet make up the whole. Although, there are certain sutras that bypass the provisional teachings given in certain schools. If only people realized that the schools are not as separate as one thinks, then perhaps people would stop arguing and cultivate more.

 

Buddhism has separate vehicles. Vajrayana vehicle is independent to Hinayana vehicle. Atiyoga is independent to Vajrayana. etc.

[RongzomFan]

Wouldn't you agree that they are all apart of the Buddhadharma?

 

Of course. They are independent vehicles of Buddhadharma.

[RongzomFan]

Alwayson, why have you picked the path of Tantra?

 

Many reasons. Direct introduction, works with the body's channels etc

 

Is it the sexual bliss that attracted you?

 

No, I only became a fan of karmamudra quite recently.

 

I always thought it was bullshit.

 

They're a part of the Buddhadharma,but why do you spend your days arguing in the buddhist forum about vajrayana?

 

You don't know what you are talking about

Edited September 13, 2013 by alwayson

[Jeff]

Interesting. Don't know if I have a question that is marinating (in my mind) on your comment. But, without a specific question on my end, could you say more?

Without a specific question, is there a need to say more.

 

The issue is really about the nature of "tantra" and it's meaning in modern culture. From the "ego perspective" or with "limited clarity of mind" it tends to get simplified down to good sex. But, the deeper (or inner) meaning is perfectly described below...

 

"The Tantras are teachings and knowledge based on the application of energy. Their origin is not found in the oral teachings of a master, as in the sutras taught by the Buddha, but stems from the manifestation in pure vision of a realized being."

- CNN

 

(Alwayson - please give some counter argument or source and not just say...bad translation )

[RongzomFan]

Yes I don't know what i'm talking about. but I'm merely referring to the threads you have with TI about certain Tibetan Buddhist traditions.

 

He not a Buddhist, so I don't know why you are bringing him up.

 

When I read your posts and I see sexual bliss brought up, it pops up in my head that you're attracted to only the sexual side of it.

 

No, I used to be against karmamudra until quite recently.

[RongzomFan]

 

(Alwayson - please give some counter argument or source and not just say...bad translation )

 

Counter argument to what?

 

Point to a Lankavatara Sutra book with universal mind. The onus is on you.

 

 

 

 

What changed my mind on karmamudra:

 

1. The biography of Togden Shakya Sri

2. The thread on Dharma wheel asserting its superiority

3. The fact that karmamudra has been consistently revealed by the tertons

4. The fact that one organically sees deities in union in lhub grub practices, without it having been generated by the mind.

5. Sexual practice has been scrubbed out by Hindu sadhus in general, and I think Vajrayana should stay old school.

6. The fact that the protectors require tertons to take consorts before revealing earth termas:

http://www.zangdokpalri.org/bio_excerpt2.pdf

Edited September 13, 2013 by alwayson

[Jeff]

Since I'm not a Buddhist teacher (obviously) I can only speculate to whatever degree... saying that I feel that the key meaning is in the very last sentence that was quoted, in other words what passed away (using and per the "four fold negation") and what did not? (otherwise imo everything the historic Buddha did would have been in vain)

Thanks for sharing. I read it a little bit differently. As you mentioned earlier, the perspective of different jhanas change as one move "beyond" it. You can sort of think of each jhana as an increasing "depth" in consciousness (or mind system=universal mind=buddhamind). One rarely ever fully realizes a "level" or removes all of issues/fears (mental obstructions). Even a Buddha needs to continually go back and use the "light of awareness" to clear stuff up. It is a never ending process until of "ceases".

[3bob]

"but stems from the manifestation in pure vision of a realized being." - CNN

 

I don't see a difference in quality between manifestation in pure vision or what could be called pure voice (oral), since both would be based on and come from the same truth.

BTW, Alwayson, everything comes back to V for you, how nice but your harping on V here is not nice or kosher, thus I suggest you start your own V string and then see who shows up and wants to pro and con with you about V to your hearts content.

Edited September 13, 2013 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

Interesting. I barely have any knowledge of tantra and it seems that it is a method for great use of a layperson and monks and nuns of course. The only problem is that I would view it as sex and I would attach to the sexual practices before I even get anywhere. I see it as just increasing my sexual desire rather than transcending it.

 

Perhaps, I would need to experience it in order to truly understand. But I have one method that I have picked up and it's not always good to jump from method to method.

 

Both partners need empowerments and instructions for karmamudra anyway.

 

I don't have them. They are pretty hard to get.

[Jeff]

"but stems from the manifestation in pure vision of a realized being." - CNN

 

I don't see a difference in quality between manifestation in pure vision or what could be called pure voice (oral), since both would be based on and come from the same truth.

 

It the context, he is describing that tantra is not something that can shown by being written down in words. It is "beyond" a simple practice that one can do. It is a knowledge (or empowerment) that is "shared" by a realized being.

[3bob]

ime pure voice is also an empowerment and can also touch someone, so to speak. (whether simple or not, since we don't want to get far-out spooky since purity is also related to simplicity)

[Tibetan_Ice]

He not a Buddhist, so I don't know why you are bringing him up.

 

 

No, I used to be against karmamudra until quite recently.

Alwaysoff,

It is not your place to tell people what I am or what I am not. Do you have a spy that watches me day in and day out to see whether I open another Buddhist book? You are a sorry example of an ambassador for Buddhism.

 

How can you even call yourself a Buddhist since you disregard Shakyamuni's teachings???:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=399954

I don't care about what Shakyamuni taught, and I am a fundamentalist Buddhist.

 

and Buddhism was founded on Shakyamuni...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama^{[note 1]}, Shakyamuni,^{[note 2]}, or simply the Buddha, was a sage^[2] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.

 

How can you use the label "Buddhist" when you denounce and do not follow it's founder? Are you in this just for the prestige?

 

[RongzomFan]

Alwaysoff,

It is not your place to tell people what I am or what I am not. Do you have a spy that watches me day in and day out to see whether I open another Buddhist book? You are a sorry example of an ambassador for Buddhism.

 

How can you even call yourself a Buddhist since you disregard Shakyamuni's teachings???:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=399954

 

 

and Buddhism was founded on Shakyamuni...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

 

 

How can you use the label "Buddhist" when you denounce and do not follow it's founder? Are you in this just for the prestige?

 

 

 

How is that denouncing?

 

I don't follow the teachings of Shakyamuni, which is Hinayana.

 

Yet he is still a supreme nirmankaya, and earth is the Pure Land of Shakyamuni.

 

This moment reminds me of a Hsuan Hua's talk:

 

But Shakyamuni also ate meat. He famously died of pork poisoning.

[RongzomFan]

I simply don't follow Hinayana. I don't see whats wrong with that position.

 

If you are arguing that there are other Buddhas teaching the Buddhadharma, yes.

 

 

Of course there are other Buddhas teaching the Buddhadharma.

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas who founded Vajrayana.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha

Edited September 14, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

not the sutras and shastras.

 

I follow tantras, not sutras.

[Creation]

alwayson,

 

Would it be possible for you to allow people to discuss jhanas in a thread called "Jhanas" without chiming in that some other practice which you have never practiced, and don't even know how to practice, and only recently became interested in is superior to cultivation of jhanas, thus derailing the whole thread?

Edited September 14, 2013 by Creation

[RongzomFan]

alwayson,

 

Would it be possible for you to allow people to discuss jhanas in a thread called "Jhanas" without chiming in that some other practice which you have never practiced, and don't even know how to practice, and only recently became interested in is superior to cultivation of jhanas, thus derailing the whole thread?

 

ok