KULARNAVA TANTRA - split

[Jonesboy]

There are two Jesus's in the bible, one is a simple man who asks people to seek for the kingdom of God, and likens it to a treasure hidden in a field that we must find, the other is almost megalomaniacal, saying 'I am the way, the truth and the light, no man cometh to the father but by me.'

 

One says seek within, the other says only have faith in him, which has created the religious division that we know today.

 

The bible is a many layered text, and it seems to me we are reading the layer that most appeals to us.

 

He sounds like a guru to me.

 

Is what he is saying really any different than the following?

 

From the KULARNAVA TANTRA

 

Difficult to obtain is the Guru who pleased,

gifts to you in the fraction of a second, the

wealth of liberation, taking you across the ocean

of Samsara.

 

Difficult to obtain is the godly Guru who

gives to the disciple his own capacity in a

moment without any ceremony or effort; who

gives instruction in knowledge which instantly

promotes faith, is easy and gives happiness of

the Self.

 

He is the Guru who goes on giving knowledge

with facility, without strenuous practice

and the like, as one moves from island to island.

Difficult to obtain is the Guru whose mere

instruction gives rise to knowledge, even as food

gives instant contentment to the hungry.

Many are the Gurus like lamps in house and

house; but rare is the Guru who lights up all

like the sun.

 

Many are the Gurus who are proficient to the

utmost in Vedas, and Sastras; but rare is the

Guru who has attained to the supreme Truth.

Many are the Gurus on earth who give what

is other than the Self; but rare is the Guru in

the worlds who brings to light the Atman.

Many are the Gurus who know petty

mantras, medicaments; but rare is the Guru

who knows the Mantras handed down by the

Nigama, Agama and Sastra.

 

Many are the Gurus who rob the disciple of

his wealth; but rare is the Guru who removes

the afflictions of the disciple.

 

Many are they who are given to the discipline

and conduct according to varna (class),

asrama (stage) and kula (family); but he who is

devoid of all volition is the Guru rare to find.

He is the Guru by whose very contact there

flows the supreme Ananda; the intelligent

man shall choose such a one as the Guru and

no other.

 

By the mere sight of him whose intelligence

is active only till the advent of experience, one

attains liberation, there is no doubt of it.

Rare is the Guru who has eaten up Doubt

which has engulfed the three worlds with all

that is moving and unmoving.

 

As in the vicinity of fire the butter gets

melted, so in the proximity of the holy Guru all

sin dissolves

 

As lighted fire burns up all fuel - dry and

moist - so the glance of the Guru burns up in a

moment the sin of the disciple.

 

As a heap of cotton blown up by a great

storm scatters in all the ten directions, so the

heap of sins is driven away by the compassion

of the Guru.

 

As darkness is destroyed at the very sight of

the lamps, so is ignorance destroyed at the very

sight of the holy Guru.

[Bindi]

 

He sounds like a guru to me.

 

Is what he is saying really any different than the following?

 

From the KULARNAVA TANTRA

 

Difficult to obtain is the Guru who pleased,

gifts to you in the fraction of a second, the

wealth of liberation, taking you across the ocean

of Samsara.

 

Difficult to obtain is the godly Guru who

gives to the disciple his own capacity in a

moment without any ceremony or effort; who

gives instruction in knowledge which instantly

promotes faith, is easy and gives happiness of

the Self.

 

He is the Guru who goes on giving knowledge

with facility, without strenuous practice

and the like, as one moves from island to island.

Difficult to obtain is the Guru whose mere

instruction gives rise to knowledge, even as food

gives instant contentment to the hungry.

Many are the Gurus like lamps in house and

house; but rare is the Guru who lights up all

like the sun.

 

Many are the Gurus who are proficient to the

utmost in Vedas, and Sastras; but rare is the

Guru who has attained to the supreme Truth.

Many are the Gurus on earth who give what

is other than the Self; but rare is the Guru in

the worlds who brings to light the Atman.

Many are the Gurus who know petty

mantras, medicaments; but rare is the Guru

who knows the Mantras handed down by the

Nigama, Agama and Sastra.

 

Many are the Gurus who rob the disciple of

his wealth; but rare is the Guru who removes

the afflictions of the disciple.

 

Many are they who are given to the discipline

and conduct according to varna (class),

asrama (stage) and kula (family); but he who is

devoid of all volition is the Guru rare to find.

He is the Guru by whose very contact there

flows the supreme Ananda; the intelligent

man shall choose such a one as the Guru and

no other.

 

By the mere sight of him whose intelligence

is active only till the advent of experience, one

attains liberation, there is no doubt of it.

Rare is the Guru who has eaten up Doubt

which has engulfed the three worlds with all

that is moving and unmoving.

 

As in the vicinity of fire the butter gets

melted, so in the proximity of the holy Guru all

sin dissolves

 

As lighted fire burns up all fuel - dry and

moist - so the glance of the Guru burns up in a

moment the sin of the disciple.

 

As a heap of cotton blown up by a great

storm scatters in all the ten directions, so the

heap of sins is driven away by the compassion

of the Guru.

 

As darkness is destroyed at the very sight of

the lamps, so is ignorance destroyed at the very

sight of the holy Guru.

 

 

 

The only role I can imagine for a guru is to point you to the guru within. Jesus does this when he says seek the Kingdom of God within, but when he says that he himself is the only way to God, he is a religion at war with all other ways to God. 

 

Though being in the presence of a guru might bring a person to some desirable mental state, which incidentally requires no effort from the devotee, as soon as they leave the guru they will start to be as themselves again, so they have two choices. Stay with the guru so that s/he can keep you forever in the desired state, or find the place within that you desire to be in.

[Jonesboy]

The only role I can imagine for a guru is to point you to the guru within. Jesus does this when he says seek the Kingdom of God within, but when he says that he himself is the only way to God, he is a religion at war with all other ways to God. 

 

Though being in the presence of a guru might bring a person to some desirable mental state, which incidentally requires no effort from the devotee, as soon as they leave the guru they will start to be as themselves again, so they have two choices. Stay with the guru so that s/he can keep you forever in the desired state, or find the place within that you desire to be in.

Hi Bindi,

 

I believe the Tantra clearly states that a guru is much more than someone who will bliss you out and that's it. Abhinavagupta does say that finding a guru that can help remove obstructions/sin is rare.

 

Jesus saying he is the only way to the Farther is troublesome if you are still thinking dualistically. Jesus and the Father are one, the only way to the Father is through the Farther. Not ego, he is just saying there is no difference.

 

Jesus didn't preach war, but he knew what would come of his teachings, of what man caught up in the local mind is capable of. Was he not Crucified? Were not the disciples persecuted? Look at what happened when the bible was created. Priest were assassinated, stomped to death all over the debate of duality and non duality and what books should be chosen.

 

Now at the same time he was bringing a new truth one that was different and challenged the Church.

 

102. Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."

 

88. Jesus said, "The messengers and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You, in turn, give them what you have, and say to yourselves, 'When will they come and take what belongs to them?'"

 

What Jesus is saying is something we are all familiar with, with regard to the church.

 

Compare what the church teaches to what Jesus was teaching.

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

[Jonesboy]

I'm not quite sure where you're getting the idea that priests were killed over which books should be considered Canon. The only place that I have heard this is the DaVinci Code...not actual history...

 

Edit: I'm open to being wrong...I just haven't seen anything anywhere about killings over the books...

 

And even with the gnostic books, most were not even up for consideration. The reasoning wasn't about the content but about the origin of the books themselves. The earliest thoughts about establishing the Canon of books started around the year 100. Pretty much all of the New Testament gnostic writings were written after that date...It would kind of be like considering The Urantia Book for official Canon...

 

And, even so, there was very little dispute about the core literature; most of the debates concerned fringe writings.

 

The older gnostic books weren't considered because they were already unofficial by Judaic standards so the Talmud was taken and a few others (but they were called "Apocrypha" and given secondary status). But, in most cases, the deciding factor for whether a book would be considered as Canon was whether it had authorial legitimacy---either a direct connection to the person of Jesus or direct connection to a teacher of the disciples. But, since Jesus and his apostles weren't quoting the non-canonical judaic writings (or, when they did, it was in a loose paraphrase), they were not up for consideration; just the established Jewish Canon was brought in from the pre-Christ era writings.

 

I won't dispute that the writings have value. But the narrative put forward is highly contestable.

You are right my memory was bad. The Council of Nicia didn't create the Bible and beyond one Bishop being attacked was non violent.

 

The Council of Ephesus on the other hand is a completely different story and what I was referring too with regard to the violence and the formation of the church and its teachings.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Jonesboy

[Jonesboy]

I don't want to keep hammering away at this.... But I had actually read an article linked up at Yahoo.com recently about St. Cyril. Even on that point, it wasn't specifically an issue about non-duality, it was an issue about christology and the status of Mary---a specific point being the Nestorian rejection of the title "Theotokos" in favor of "Christotokos". Actually, it could be seen as affirming non-dualism because Nestorianism involved the stipulation that Christ was two persons instead of one.

 

This resulted in a formal schism regarding the Nestorian church in the east but I don't think they were directly attacked; they were denied support.

 

And with regards to the violence (it is depicted in the movie Agora, which I saw a year or so ago) it was also not a matter of ideas; it was politics. (And unrelated to the council) Even though Cyril was the originator of a massacre in Alexandria, the place religion had was pretty much entirely sociopolitical.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/01/the-villain-who-gave-us-mother-of-god.html

 

So Cyril was a bit of a toerag.... but the issue that resulted in violence wasn't particularly one of non-dualism...or any particular doctrine...

 

Although I am not entirely sure we can pin everything on Cyril as there had been violence back and forth between Christians, Jews, and pagans; and we also don't have good documentation on the matter.

Maybe we should start a separate thread on non duality and duality in early Christianity so we don't derail this thread.

 

Here is a pretty good book I just found talking about about gnostic, non duality at the Council of Nicea and non duality in Christianity in general.

 

A Study of Qualitative Non-Pluralism

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=jW2pcWpXY8wC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=non+duality+and+duality+in+early+christianity&source=bl&ots=F50dHxIwPk&sig=62Igt4wXt6zsigQtRL7sSq70hJk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir8MX8k6zSAhUor1QKHTW_Cng4ChDoAQggMAM#v=onepage&q=non%20duality%20and%20duality%20in%20early%20christianity&f=false

[Bindi]

Hi Bindi,

 

I believe the Tantra clearly states that a guru is much more than someone who will bliss you out and that's it. Abhinavagupta does say that finding a guru that can help remove obstructions/sin is rare.

A quick internet search tells me he also states in the Kularnava Tantra that without shaktipat there is no liberation or Self-realisation, which I absolutely disagree with, also I found that apparently Muktananda cited this exact text “frequently but selectively” because "it includes certain transgressive elements" that don’t sit well with "contemporary dominant ethical standards", so I am disinclined to take his opinion on gurus too seriously either.

 

Jesus saying he is the only way to the Farther is troublesome if you are still thinking dualistically.

 

Jesus and the Father are one, the only way to the Father is through the Farther. Not ego, he is just saying there is no difference.

Do you mean "the only way to the Father is through the Father" or the only way to the Father is through the Son?

 

It's not always so clear in the bible that "Jesus and the Father are one", how would you explain this:

 

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" -- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46-47

 

Jesus didn't preach war, but he knew what would come of his teachings, of what man caught up in the local mind is capable of. Was he not Crucified? Were not the disciples persecuted? Look at what happened when the bible was created. Priest were assassinated, stomped to death all over the debate of duality and non duality and what books should be chosen.

 

Now at the same time he was bringing a new truth one that was different and challenged the Church.

 

102. Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."

 

88. Jesus said, "The messengers and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You, in turn, give them what you have, and say to yourselves, 'When will they come and take what belongs to them?'"

 

What Jesus is saying is something we are all familiar with, with regard to the church.

 

Compare what the church teaches to what Jesus was teaching.

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

[Jonesboy]

A quick internet search tells me he also states in the Kularnava Tantra that without shaktipat there is no liberation or Self-realisation, which I absolutely disagree with, also I found that apparently Muktananda cited this exact text “frequently but selectively” because "it includes certain transgressive elements" that don’t sit well with "contemporary dominant ethical standards", so I am disinclined to take his opinion on gurus too seriously either.

Abhinavagupta is considered a very great master and his writing to me are beyond par. That would be the first time I have read anything negative towards him. Do you mind providing a link to someone critizing Abhinavagupta?

 

There are also many Buddhist who would agree that without empowerments or direct transmission one cannot reach Buddhahood.

 

Or it will take you a thousand lifetimes to do it yourself compared to receiving divine grace which can help one achieve liberation in one lifetime.

 

Your call.

 

 

Do you mean "the only way to the Father is through the Father" or the only way to the Father is through the Son?

 

It's not always so clear in the bible that "Jesus and the Father are one", how would you explain this:

Because the church tells you that heaven is some place after you die, that it is outside of yourself.

Maybe the Buddha's words from the Lankavatara sutra will help.

 

Then Mahamati said: If the Tathágatas are un-born, there does not seem to be anything to take hold of – no entity – or is there something that bears another name than entity? And what can that "something" be?

 

The Blessed One replied: Objects are frequently known by different names according to different aspects that they present, the god Indra is sometimes known as Shakra, and sometimes as Purandara. These different names are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes they are discriminated, but different objects are not to be imagined because of the different names, nor are they without individuation. The same can be said of myself as I appear in this world of patience before ignorant people and where I am known by uncounted trillions of names. They address me by different names not realizing that they are all names of the one Tathágata. Some recognize me as Tathágata, some as the self-existent one, some as Gautama the Ascetic, some as Buddha. Then there are others who recognize me as Brahma, as Vishnu, as Ishvara; some see me as Sun, as Moon; some as a reincarnation of the ancient sages; some as one of "ten powers"; some as Rama, some as Indra, and some as Varuna. Still there are others who speak of me as The Un-born, as Emptiness, as "Suchness," as Truth, as Reality, as Ultimate Principle; still there are others who see me as Dharmakaya, as Nirvana, as the Eternal; some speak of me as sameness, as non-duality, as un-dying, as formless; some think of me as the doctrine of Buddha-causation, or of Emancipation, or of the Noble Path; and some think of me as Divine Mind and Noble Wisdom. Thus in this world and in other worlds am I known by these uncounted names, but they all see me as the moon is seen in the water. Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use; not having their own self-realization of Truth they cling to the words of their canonical books, or to what has been told to them, or to what they have imagined, and fail to see that the name they are using is only one of the many names of the Tathágata. In their studies they follow the mere words of the text vainly trying to gain the true meaning, instead of having confidence in the one "text" where self-confirming Truth is revealed, that is, having confidence in the self-realization of noble Wisdom.

 

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" -- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46-47

I am open to being wrong but it seems at that moment Jesus hit an obstruction, a fear.. One that he was able to let go of moments later.

[Bindi]

Abhinavagupta is considered a very great master and his writing to me are beyond par. That would be the first time I have read anything negative towards him. Do you mind providing a link to someone critizing Abhinavagupta?

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=C2q6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=gbXpVimejz&sig=E4RGVyIlg04d5EWAsESkEM5xQDc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2mfCP2a3SAhWqxVQKHRCpA0k4ChDoAQgvMAQ#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vDfPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=p3Cpf22dkQ&sig=fLq8ZSoEwPR41wBQ4Z2Fls8PQoI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOrPLn1a3SAhUrqFQKHcZmCQoQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false

 

There are also many Buddhist who would agree that without empowerments or direct transmission one cannot reach Buddhahood.

 

Or it will take you a thousand lifetimes to do it yourself compared to receiving divine grace which can help one achieve liberation in one lifetime.

 

Your call.

 

I prefer these sort of Buddhists:

 

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.

 

A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.

 

The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi.

To the seekers of truth the Buddha says:

 

"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

 

"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.

 

"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."

 

Furthermore, it must be mentioned that there are no petitional or intercessory prayers in Buddhism. However much we may pray to the Buddha we cannot be saved. The Buddha does not grant favors to those who pray to him. Instead of petitional prayers there is meditation that leads to self-control, purification and enlightenment. Meditation is neither a silent reverie nor keeping the mind blank. It is an active striving. It serves as a tonic both to the heart and the mind. The Buddha not only speaks of the futility of offering prayers but also disparages a slave mentality. A Buddhist should not pray to be saved, but should rely on himself and win his freedom.

 

In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and punishes. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests.

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

 

Because the church tells you that heaven is some place after you die, that it is outside of yourself.

Maybe the Buddha's words from the Lankavatara sutra will help.

 

I am open to being wrong but it seems at that moment Jesus hit an obstruction, a fear.. One that he was able to let go of moments later.

Is it usual for God to hit an obstruction or fear?

[Jonesboy]

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=C2q6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=gbXpVimejz&sig=E4RGVyIlg04d5EWAsESkEM5xQDc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2mfCP2a3SAhWqxVQKHRCpA0k4ChDoAQgvMAQ#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vDfPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=p3Cpf22dkQ&sig=fLq8ZSoEwPR41wBQ4Z2Fls8PQoI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOrPLn1a3SAhUrqFQKHcZmCQoQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false

 

 

I prefer these sort of Buddhists:

 

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.

 

A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.

 

The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi.

To the seekers of truth the Buddha says:

 

"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

 

"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.

 

"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."

 

Furthermore, it must be mentioned that there are no petitional or intercessory prayers in Buddhism. However much we may pray to the Buddha we cannot be saved. The Buddha does not grant favors to those who pray to him. Instead of petitional prayers there is meditation that leads to self-control, purification and enlightenment. Meditation is neither a silent reverie nor keeping the mind blank. It is an active striving. It serves as a tonic both to the heart and the mind. The Buddha not only speaks of the futility of offering prayers but also disparages a slave mentality. A Buddhist should not pray to be saved, but should rely on himself and win his freedom.

 

In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and punishes. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests.

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

 

Is it usual for God to hit an obstruction or fear?

 

Your first link doesn't work and I didn't see anything that talked disparaging towards Kashmir Shaivism.

 

It is definitely a guru based tradition.

 

Your Buddhist quote is just saying don't have blind faith or expect others i.e. Buddhas to do the work for you. You have to do the work, you have to let go. It is not saying that guru's are bad or having a teacher is wrong.

 

As a matter of fact the Buddha say's you need help to become a Buddha.

 

From the Lankavatra Sutra:

 

 

 

The ignorant and simple-minded being fascinated with their self-imaginations and erroneous reasoning’s, keep on dancing and leap about, but are unable to understand the discourse by words about the truth of self-realization, much less are they able to understand the Truth itself. Clinging to the external world, they cling to the study of books which are a means only, and do not know properly how to ascertain the truth of self-realization, which is Truth unspoiled by the four propositions. Self-realization is an exalted state of inner attainment which transcends all dualistic thinking and which is above the mind-system with its logic, reasoning, theorizing, and illustrations. The Tathágatas discourse to the ignorant, but sustain Bodhisattvas as they seek self-realization of Noble Wisdom

 

 

 

These aspects are: First, imageless-ness, which comes forth when all things belonging to discipleship, mastership, and philosophy are thoroughly mastered. Second, the power added by all the Buddhas by reason of their original vows including the identification of their lives and the sharing of their merit with all sentient lives. Third, the perfect self-realization that thus far has only been realized in a measure, as the Bodhisattva succeeds in detaching himself from viewing all things, including his own imagined ego-ness, in their phenomenality, and realizes the states of Samádhi and Samapatti whereby he surveys the world as a vision and a dream, and being sustained by all the Buddhas, he will be able to pass on to the full attainment of the Tathágata stage, which is Noble Wisdom itself. This is the triplicity of the noble life and being furnished with this triplicity the perfect self-realization of Noble Wisdom has been attained

 

 

 

 

 

Mahamati said: Blessed One, tell us about the sustaining power of the Tathágatas by which the Bodhisattvas are aided to attain self-realization of Noble Wisdom?

 

The Blessed One replied: There are two kinds of sustaining power, which issue from the Tathágatas and are at the service of the Bodhisattvas, sustained by which the Bodhisattvas should prostrate themselves before them and show their appreciation by asking questions. The first kind of sustaining power is the Bodhisattva’s own adoration and faith in the Buddhas by reason of which the Buddhas are able to manifest themselves and render their aid and to ordain them with their own hands. The second kind of sustaining power is the power radiating from the Tathágatas that enables the Bodhisattvas to attain and to pass through the various Samádhis and Samapattis without becoming intoxicated by their bliss.

 

Being sustained by the power of the Buddhas, the Bodhisattva even at the first stage will be able to attain the Samádhi known as the Light of Mahayana. In that Samádhi Bodhisattvas will become conscious of the presence of the Tathágatas coming from all their different abodes in the ten quarters to impart to the Bodhisattvas their sustaining power in various ways. As the Bodhisattva Vajragarbha was sustained in his Samádhis and as many other Bodhisattvas of like degree and virtue have been sustained, so all earnest disciples and masters and Bodhisattvas may experience this sustaining power of the Buddhas in their Samádhis and Samapattis. The disciple’s faith and the Tathágata’s merit are two aspects of the same sustaining power and by it alone are the Bodhisattvas enabled to become one with the company of the Buddhas.

 

Whatever Samádhis, psychic faculties and teachings are realized by the Bodhisattvas, they are made possible only by the sustaining power of the Buddhas; if it were otherwise, the ignorant and the simple-minded might attain the same fruitage. Wherever the Tathágatas enter with their sustaining power there will be music, not only music made by human lips and played by human hands on various instruments, but there will be music among the grass and shrubs and trees, and in the mountains and towns and palaces and hovels; much more will there be music in the heart of those endowed with sentiency. The deaf, dumb and blind will be cured of their deficiencies and will rejoice in their emancipation. Such is the extraordinary virtue of the sustaining power imparted by the Tathágatas.

 

By the bestowal of this sustaining power, the Bodhisattvas are enabled to avoid the evils of passion, hatred and enslaving karma; they are enabled to transcend the Dhyana of the beginners and to advance beyond the experience and truth already attained; they are enabled to demonstrate the Paramitas; and finally, to attain the stage of Tathágata-hood. Mahamati, if it were not for this sustaining power, they would relapse into the ways and thoughts of the philosophers, easy-going disciples and the evil-minded, and would thus fall short of the highest attainment. For these reasons, earnest disciples and sincere Bodhisattvas are sustained by the power of all the Tathágatas.

 

Is it usual for God to hit an obstruction or fear?

 

What one is not able to let go of immediately is that which one needs to work on letting go of. The Buddhas can help, provide space and energy but it is you that still has to let the issue go. Which is right in line with what you shared above

 

 

.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jonesboy

[Bindi]

 

 

Your first link doesn't work and I didn't see anything that talked disparaging towards Kashmir Shaivism.

 

It is definitely a guru based tradition.

 

Your Buddhist quote is just saying don't have blind faith or expect others i.e. Buddhas to do the work for you. You have to do the work, you have to let go. It is not saying that guru's are bad or having a teacher is wrong.

 

As a matter of fact the Buddha say's you need help to become a Buddha.

 

From the Lankavatra Sutra:

 

Is it usual for God to hit an obstruction or fear?

 

What one is not able to let go of immediately is that which one needs to work on letting go of. The Buddhas can help, provide space and energy but it is you that still has to let the issue go. Which is right in line with what you shared above

 

 

.

 

Perhaps you can find it by searching;  Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture

By Andrea R. Jain and maybe add keywords Kularnava Tantra Muktananda.

[Jonesboy]

 

Perhaps you can find it by searching;  Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture

By Andrea R. Jain and maybe add keywords Kularnava Tantra Muktananda.

 

I think i will take a more credible source for discussion on the merits of KS.

 

Thank you.

[Jetsun]

Personally I think the idea that you need empowerment from a specific empowered Lama in order to gain enlightenment is a corruption of Buddhism, one designed to keep people subservient to a ruling class. The Pali scriptures are more about taking self responsibility for your own enlightenment, while the later turnings may have created faster methods that doesn't mean that there also wasn't corruptions.

[Jeff]

Personally I think the idea that you need empowerment from a specific empowered Lama in order to gain enlightenment is a corruption of Buddhism, one designed to keep people subservient to a ruling class. The Pali scriptures are more about taking self responsibility for your own enlightenment, while the later turnings may have created faster methods that doesn't mean that there also wasn't corruptions.

You don't think it could be two separate issues? Some possibly taking advantage, but also that some techniques requiring direct transmission (not just something you can read in a book)?

[C T]

Its a fallacy - no authentic Tibetan/Mahayana teaching or teacher has ever uttered such a thing as needing empowerment or transmission to gain buddhahood. 

 

Empowerments are given traditionally to acknowledge that a practitioner has completed a particular sadhana and is thus ready to move up/on to the next stage of practice. 

 

Transmission, as far as the Nyingma tradition goes, occurs when the student's mind is ripe for the guru to reveal what the true nature of mind is so that there will be no mistaking it in future. It does not promise or impart to the recipient anything other than an unmistaken view of mind essence. 

[Jonesboy]

Its a fallacy - no authentic Tibetan/Mahayana teaching or teacher has ever uttered such a thing as needing empowerment or transmission to gain buddhahood.

 

Empowerments are given traditionally to acknowledge that a practitioner has completed a particular sadhana and is thus ready to move up/on to the next stage of practice.

 

Transmission, as far as the Nyingma tradition goes, occurs when the student's mind is ripe for the guru to reveal what the true nature of mind is so that there will be no mistaking it in future. It does not promise or impart to the recipient anything other than an unmistaken view of mind essence.

Empowerments are more than an acknowledgement.

 

Is not the sustaining power a transmission which the Buddha says one needs to become a Buddha?

 

Also, I never said any of it promises anything.

 

I stand corrected in saying one can't attain Buddhahood without them. One can be a Pratyekabuddha and take a hundred kalpas to achieve it. I would like your thoughts on what the Buddha means by sustaining power if it is not a transmission.

 

.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jonesboy

[Jeff]

Its a fallacy - no authentic Tibetan/Mahayana teaching or teacher has ever uttered such a thing as needing empowerment or transmission to gain buddhahood. 

 

Empowerments are given traditionally to acknowledge that a practitioner has completed a particular sadhana and is thus ready to move up/on to the next stage of practice. 

 

Transmission, as far as the Nyingma tradition goes, occurs when the student's mind is ripe for the guru to reveal what the true nature of mind is so that there will be no mistaking it in future. It does not promise or impart to the recipient anything other than an unmistaken view of mind essence.

 

I am also not aware of any teacher stating that one needs empowerment or transmission to gain buddhahood. But, I am aware of many teachers stating that one needs empowerment or transmission to do (or use) certain practices. As an example...

 

"It is imperative that we receive not only the proper empowerments for a practice we wish to engage in, but also a transmission. It is said in the Secret Teachings that one who has not received a transmission of a Tantric text or practice is not even allowed to read it, and that even if they do, they will not be able to receive the benefits and good qualities that would otherwise arise from it. Followers of Vajrayana Buddhism believe that the blessings of the Teachings cannot be transmitted fully without the bestowing of both an empowerment and a transmission, so to attempt to practice or study a Tantra without them could ripen into a serious obstacle."

- The Union of Dzogchen and Bodchitta by Anyen Rinpoche

[Bindi]

 

I think i will take a more credible source for discussion on the merits of KS.

 

Thank you.

The author Andrea R. Jain is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Purdue University Indianapolis. She is not a credible source?

[C T]

Empowerments are more than an acknowledgement.

 

Is not the sustaining power a transmission which the Buddha says one needs to become a Buddha?

 

Also, I never said any of it promises anything.

 

I stand corrected in saying one can't attain Buddhahood without them. One can be a Pratyekabuddha and take a hundred kalpas to achieve it. I would like your thoughts on what the Buddha means by sustaining power if it is not a transmission.

 

.

A transmission is not any sort of sustaining power, Jonesboy. Moreover, it is beyond my scope to speculate if that is indeed what the Buddha said, which i would tend to doubt anyhow. 

[Jonesboy]

 

The author Andrea R. Jain is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Purdue University Indianapolis. She is not a credible source?

 

 

Not really when it comes to spiritual stuff. A professor of Religious studies without the Wisdom of realization doesn't really mean much to me.

 

You kinda miss a lot.

[C T]

I am also not aware of any teacher stating that one needs empowerment or transmission to gain buddhahood. But, I am aware of many teachers stating that one needs empowerment or transmission to do (or use) certain practices. As an example...

 

"It is imperative that we receive not only the proper empowerments for a practice we wish to engage in, but also a transmission. It is said in the Secret Teachings that one who has not received a transmission of a Tantric text or practice is not even allowed to read it, and that even if they do, they will not be able to receive the benefits and good qualities that would otherwise arise from it. Followers of Vajrayana Buddhism believe that the blessings of the Teachings cannot be transmitted fully without the bestowing of both an empowerment and a transmission, so to attempt to practice or study a Tantra without them could ripen into a serious obstacle."

- The Union of Dzogchen and Bodchitta by Anyen Rinpoche

You might want to clarify this with Jonesboy. 

[Jonesboy]

A transmission is not any sort of sustaining power, Jonesboy. Moreover, it is beyond my scope to speculate if that is indeed what the Buddha said, which i would tend to doubt anyhow. 

 

Sounds like you don't know but just want to tell me I am wrong

 

Thanks for the reply.

[C T]

Not really when it comes to spiritual stuff. A professor of Religious studies without the Wisdom of realization doesn't really mean much to me.

 

You kinda miss a lot.

Are you implying here that you are able to discern this 'wisdom of realization' in an individual? Thats a mighty claim. 

[C T]

Sounds like you don't know but just want to tell me I am wrong

 

Thanks for the reply.

If I may be direct... 

 

Yes, your premise was completely flawed. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by C T

[Jonesboy]

Are you implying here that you are able to discern this 'wisdom of realization' in an individual? Thats a mighty claim. 

 

I make no claim CT. Just saying a professor of Religious studies saying how KS is wrong.. When so many others have spoken so highly of it doesn't impress me. I would prefer people of renown before disparaging at tradition.

[Jonesboy]

If I may be direct... 

 

Yes, your premise was completely flawed. 

 

Kinda like you saying an empowerment is just an acknowledgement? Or you saying the Lankavatra Sutra isn't credible?

 

Just about every tradition that say's they can lead one to Buddhahood gives transmissions and empowerment's to aid one on the path. How many traditions use them and how many teachings and practice would you not be able to do without them?

 

That was my point and I admit I should have worded it better. At the same time it is my belief that the sustaining power is a continuous transmission.. i.e. sustaining.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jonesboy