Merging and guru yoga

[Apech]

All the words in English relating to 'recognise', 'know' and so on are related to a single PIE root *gno:

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/*gno-?ref=etymonline_crossreference

 

which is why they have 'gn' or 'kn' in them.  

 

When you know something you recognise it - which because of the 're' prefix means you are re-knowing it - that is relating immediate sense perception to stored experience.  Our minds (consciousness/citta) have this quality of perceiving and storing impressions.  This activity gives rise to name and form (namo/rupa) which means essentially we have ascribed a category (family) to a thing based on what it is born from - what is its mother.  If it is born from a dog it is a dog and if it is born from a cat it is a cat.  This is all to do with a related PIE root *gene, which means to give birth to.

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/*gene-

 

If we think of the phrase 'kith and kin' we can see how these word groups hang together to form the basis for knowing.

[dwai]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

All the words in English relating to 'recognise', 'know' and so on are related to a single PIE root *gno:

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/*gno-?ref=etymonline_crossreference

 

which is why they have 'gn' or 'kn' in them.  

 

When you know something you recognise it - which because of the 're' prefix means you are re-knowing it - that is relating immediate sense perception to stored experience.  Our minds (consciousness/citta) have this quality of perceiving and storing impressions. 

“Chit”, not “chitta”. Chitta literally is the storehouse of impressions. Chit is consciousness. It seems like a minor difference but is not. It is our intellect (buddhi) that does the cognizing. It is done in the mind (manas) as thoughts. 

6 hours ago, Apech said:

This activity gives rise to name and form (namo/rupa) which means essentially we have ascribed a category (family) to a thing based on what it is born from - what is its mother.  If it is born from a dog it is a dog and if it is born from a cat it is a cat.  This is all to do with a related PIE root *gene, which means to give birth to.

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/*gene-

 

If we think of the phrase 'kith and kin' we can see how these word groups hang together to form the basis for knowing.

Overall very interesting idea.  

[C T]

In the Buddhist texts, citta is used overlappingly with manas and viññaña.

[Apech]

13 minutes ago, dwai said:

“Chit”, not “chitta”. Chitta literally is the storehouse of impressions. Chit is consciousness. It seems like a minor difference but is not. It is our intellect (buddhi) that does the cognizing. It is done in the mind (manas) as thoughts. 

Overall very interesting idea.  

 

As CT points out that's a yoga/Hindu idea - Chit as a pure consciousness, which doesn't appear in Buddhist philosophy - I was referring to the actual mechanism of knowing (or in my own way trying to) based loosely on Yogacara.

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

As CT points out that's a yoga/Hindu idea - Chit as a pure consciousness, which doesn't appear in Buddhist philosophy - I was referring to the actual mechanism of knowing (or in my own way trying to) based loosely on Yogacara.

Yeah got it. But it gets murky because Buddhism uses many Hindu words  

 

In any case, the process is the same, just a bit more details, and that’s important when we do self inquiry in the vedantic way. One of the methods is to observe the five sheaths (koshas) where the four components namely manas, Chitta, buddhi and ahamkara play a big role.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by dwai

[ilumairen]

21 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

How about, I didn't fully understand your question and did my best to answer it while at the same time admitting I was wrong in my previous posts.

 

I was just wondering if you had considered any potential significance to what I'd pointed out from the text. 

 

22 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

And this part?

 

 

Seems like differentiation and knowing to me..

 

How?

 

Mind to mind..

 

But as has been pointed out, how it actually is, isn't a differentiation..

 

With that being said.. my path isn't Buddhist.. but it is nice learning something and correcting a misunderstanding with regard to Buddhism.

 

May I ask, if your path isn't Buddhist why you quote soo many Buddhist texts? This isn't a condemnation, but a curiosity, as I've found value in some of what you've shared.

[Apech]

39 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yeah got it. But it gets murky because Buddhism uses many Hindu words  

 

In any case, the process is the same, just a bit more details, and that’s important when we do self inquiry in the vedantic way. One of the methods is to observe the five sheaths (koshas) where the four components namely manas, Chitta, buddhi and ahamkara play a big role.

 

 

Terms from Samkhya - or to put it another way Sanskrit terms - but then the use of terms evolve over time as they are applied I would say - for instance is citta in the Yoga-sutra exactly the same as the Samkhya version?  

 

 

[dwai]

39 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Terms from Samkhya - or to put it another way Sanskrit terms - but then the use of terms evolve over time as they are applied I would say - for instance is citta in the Yoga-sutra exactly the same as the Samkhya version?  

 

 

Samkhya is a foundation of Hindu dharma.  

 

Majority of theoretical  basis of Hindu darshana comes from samkhya. Buddha too was first a student of samkhya. So is a common framework there. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by dwai

[forestofclarity]

I don't know about that. Most modern Buddhists would probably say that Abhidharma provides the underlying conceptual framework for Buddhism the way Samkhya does for some Hindu schools of thought. However, even within Buddhism the same terms can have different meanings depending on tradition and context. Abhidharma doesn't use the koshas, the gunas, the same ideas of causation, etc. Adbhidharma starts is very based in experience and doesn't really have the similar speculative metaphysics that you find in many of the Hindu school. Abhidharma is also fundamentally deconstructionist-- everything is broken into parts, wholes are generally denied, and the fundamental marks of existence are impermanence, dissatisfaction, and no-self. Early Buddhism is shockingly atomistic--- a point often seized upon by Hindu critics. 

 

I would certainly be up to seeing some comparisons as I just got a new Abhidharma book. 

 

FWIW, I think the kosha model is a good and useful one, but quite different from the skandhas. 

 

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Samkhya is a foundation of Hindu dharma.  

 

Majority of theoretical  basis of Hindu darshana comes from samkhya. Buddha too was first a student of samkhya. So is a common framework there. 

 

[dwai]

39 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

I don't know about that. Most modern Buddhists would probably say that Abhidharma provides the underlying conceptual framework for Buddhism the way Samkhya does for some Hindu schools of thought. However, even within Buddhism the same terms can have different meanings depending on tradition and context. Abhidharma doesn't use the koshas, the gunas, the same ideas of causation, etc. Adbhidharma starts is very based in experience and doesn't really have the similar speculative metaphysics that you find in many of the Hindu school. Abhidharma is also fundamentally deconstructionist-- everything is broken into parts, wholes are generally denied, and the fundamental marks of existence are impermanence, dissatisfaction, and no-self. Early Buddhism is shockingly atomistic--- a point often seized upon by Hindu critics. 

 

I would certainly be up to seeing some comparisons as I just got a new Abhidharma book. 

Most insightful. 

39 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

FWIW, I think the kosha model is a good and useful one, but quite different from the skandhas. 

 

 

Koshas are only one way. There are other techniques used too, depending on the individual. 

[Jonesboy]

23 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

I was just wondering if you had considered any potential significance to what I'd pointed out from the text. 

 

 

May I ask, if your path isn't Buddhist why you quote soo many Buddhist texts? This isn't a condemnation, but a curiosity, as I've found value in some of what you've shared.

 

From the previous discussions about a Buddha and differentiation it seems the Buddha can see the suffering and from personal experience relate.

 

If I am missing something please let me know.

 

 I quote Buddhism a lot as you have pointed out because I find a lot of truth in Buddhism. At the same time I think it has some limitations. An example would be this thread on guru and merging which would be much more in line with Kashmir Shaivism and is very different than Buddhism. You will never see anything in Buddhism where a guru can merge another with a divine being for example.

 

While the thread continues I did find it interesting that nobody commented on my recent post about Norbu working with guardians and dakinis. 

[ilumairen]

 

5 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

While the thread continues I did find it interesting that nobody commented on my recent post about Norbu working with guardians and dakinis. 

 

What sort of comment were you looking for?

 

[Apech]

9 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

From the previous discussions about a Buddha and differentiation it seems the Buddha can see the suffering and from personal experience relate.

 

If I am missing something please let me know.

 

 I quote Buddhism a lot as you have pointed out because I find a lot of truth in Buddhism. At the same time I think it has some limitations. An example would be this thread on guru and merging which would be much more in line with Kashmir Shaivism and is very different than Buddhism. You will never see anything in Buddhism where a guru can merge another with a divine being for example.

 

While the thread continues I did find it interesting that nobody commented on my recent post about Norbu working with guardians and dakinis. 

 

All vajrayana Buddhists work with dharmapalas and dakinis.  Not sure why this is an issue.

[Jonesboy]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

All vajrayana Buddhists work with dharmapalas and dakinis.  Not sure why this is an issue.

 

Didn’t say it was an issue, just interesting.

 

 I guess nobody else does, okay.

[Jonesboy]

6 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

What sort of comment were you looking for?

 

 

Ahh, what is the title of this thread? Maybe something along those lines.

[Apech]

3 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Didn’t say it was an issue, just interesting.

 

 I guess nobody else does, okay.

 

Interesting as in surprising do you mean?

 

I think all tantric sadhanas have something you might describe as merging - although I guess sticklers would say that 'merging' implies a you and an it to merge together - while Buddhism might say the it is real and the you is not - or something along those lines if you see what I mean.

 

 

[C T]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Interesting as in surprising do you mean?

 

I think all tantric sadhanas have something you might describe as merging - although I guess sticklers would say that 'merging' implies a you and an it to merge together - while Buddhism might say the it is real and the you is not - or something along those lines if you see what I mean.

 

 

 

I've always considered the early steps of Buddhist tantrism to be a prep stage where an initiate gets to enact a role and act out "scenes" as described in the liturgies so as to familiarise with, and tease out, one's innate completeness, part of which involves the recognition that "we" (the initiate) have never been separated from our true nature (symbolised by the various yidam/khandro yab yum icons). I believe the approach is to train in seeing the already perfected union, and then allow that to manifest and stabilise over the course of 5 million accumulations  for the purpose of purifying even the subtlest habits that, for a length of many lifetimes, have tricked us into believing the various imperfections most of us think are what keeps us intolerable and therefore unworthy of buddhahood/enlightenment.

 

So, maybe the consideration for tantric practice is one of training in recognition that we have always been "merged" from beginningless time (aka self perfected) rather than forming potentially tricky assumptions (mentations?) of having to put in the work to cleanse our "spirit" in readiness for some sort of Buddhist rapture! Maybe for this reason guru yoga practice (in relation to Vajrayanatantra) with visualizations conclude with the exhortation to dissolve any apparent separative notions while at the same time attempts are made to gain increasing recognition of one's innate blemish-free essence, already always conjoined with the nature of one's guru, yidam and khandro. The idea of merging sounds to me like an encouragement that perpetuates distortionary notions that keep alive this delusion of separation, whereas the aim of Mantrayana remains as always to dissolve/cut deeply rooted habits believed to be obstacles that will only be supplanted with the practice of merit accumulation, which together with the visualization practices work synergistically to enhance realization. 

 

apologies for the windy reply

 

[Fa Xin]

For me, merging and guru yoga type practices is the main thing that started to knock down the walls of separateness. 

 

I know theoretically, the practice sounds like it perpetuates “I’m over here, I have to merge with that over there.”  All I can say is with time, that view and the idea of separation started to disappear. The gap between “that over there” got smaller and smaller. I know it sounds counter intuitive, like some “hair of the dog that bit ya” practice. But in order to merge with something, the idea that “it’s over there” has to be given up? How can I be the same as something else.

 

Anyway, I don’t know much about doctrine or scripture, but I practice a lot and that’s what I got so far. Cheers!

 

 

 

 

[C T]

8 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

For me, merging and guru yoga type practices is the main thing that started to knock down the walls of separateness. 

 

I know theoretically, the practice sounds like it perpetuates “I’m over here, I have to merge with that over there.”  All I can say is with time, that view and the idea of separation started to disappear. The gap between “that over there” got smaller and smaller. I know it sounds counter intuitive, like some “hair of the dog that bit ya” practice. But in order to merge with something, the idea that “it’s over there” has to be given up? How can I be the same as something else.

 

Anyway, I don’t know much about doctrine or scripture, but I practice a lot and that’s what I got so far. Cheers!

 

 

 

 

 

Any practice that aids in knocking down walls, allowing for clearer perception to arise of the always-perfect, unseparated, stateless state helps in stabilizing the viewless View (sounds corny, I know, but thats what it is basically lol). Intention & motivation is key. Keep it up! 

 

I guess the only slight difference between your understanding and that prescribed in the actual practice of guru yoga ala Vajrayana is only one of premise, wherein the latter attempts to make known to the initiate that any conceptual formulas that suggest approaches to praxis from a dualistic perspective, out of which mentations that involve "merging" are derivatives, is a mistaken premise. While both encourage processes of purification, there are subtle differences in application. The standpoint of Vajrayana has always been the assertion of fundamental non-duality, which is symbolised by the tutelary buddha Samantabhadra (the primordial Buddha) with consort Samantabhadri (the primordial Mother Buddha) in perpetual yab yum, since beginningless time. 

[Jeff]

28 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Any practice that aids in knocking down walls, allowing for clearer perception to arise of the always-perfect, unseparated, stateless state helps in stabilizing the viewless View (sounds corny, I know, but thats what it is basically lol). Intention & motivation is key. Keep it up! 

 

I guess the only slight difference between your understanding and that prescribed in the actual practice of guru yoga ala Vajrayana is only one of premise, wherein the latter attempts to make known to the initiate that any conceptual formulas that suggest approaches to praxis from a dualistic perspective, out of which mentations that involve "merging" are derivatives, is a mistaken premise. While both encourage processes of purification, there are subtle differences in application. The standpoint of Vajrayana has always been the assertion of fundamental non-duality, which is symbolised by the tutelary buddha Samantabhadra (the primordial Buddha) with consort Samantabhadri (the primordial Mother Buddha) in perpetual yab yum, since beginningless time. 

 

That “polarity” combined with the perpetual yab yum (energy flow between the poles) is the underlying dynamic that helps everyone sort of wash away the impurities. 

[Fa Xin]

44 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Any practice that aids in knocking down walls, allowing for clearer perception to arise of the always-perfect, unseparated, stateless state helps in stabilizing the viewless View (sounds corny, I know, but thats what it is basically lol). Intention & motivation is key. Keep it up! 

 

I guess the only slight difference between your understanding and that prescribed in the actual practice of guru yoga ala Vajrayana is only one of premise, wherein the latter attempts to make known to the initiate that any conceptual formulas that suggest approaches to praxis from a dualistic perspective, out of which mentations that involve "merging" are derivatives, is a mistaken premise. While both encourage processes of purification, there are subtle differences in application. The standpoint of Vajrayana has always been the assertion of fundamental non-duality, which is symbolised by the tutelary buddha Samantabhadra (the primordial Buddha) with consort Samantabhadri (the primordial Mother Buddha) in perpetual yab yum, since beginningless time. 

 

Nice, thank you for  the encouragement, and the info!  I guess I don't really think of it like dualistic or not - I just kind of open myself up to the process and energy, and whatever happens happens.   I've gotten away from the non-dual view, though.  To me, I've found much of it was my concept and ideas of "nondual".  There just is what there is.  Sometimes it presents itself as dualistic, and that's OK because it's contained in the "all".  As the tantric stuff states, nothing is to be rejected.  Is the "stateless state" separate from dualism, or is dualism contained within it?  I don't know... but I'm off to the beach now...  thank you for the fun convo! 

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Fa Xin

[Fa Xin]

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

That “polarity” combined with the perpetual yab yum (energy flow between the poles) is the underlying dynamic that helps everyone sort of wash away the impurities. 

 

You have a nice way of putting into one sentence what I cannot seem to express !  Thanks for this.

[Jonesboy]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Interesting as in surprising do you mean?

 

I think all tantric sadhanas have something you might describe as merging - although I guess sticklers would say that 'merging' implies a you and an it to merge together - while Buddhism might say the it is real and the you is not - or something along those lines if you see what I mean.

 

 

 

In Buddhism is there a you and a me? Not local mind you and me but two Buddha’s or anyway you want to look at that?

 

Is there only one being or are there multiple beings?

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

In Buddhism is there a you and a me? Not local mind you and me but two Buddha’s or anyway you want to look at that?

 

Is there only one being or are there multiple beings?

 

 

beings are just bundles of interacting processes

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

beings are just bundles of interacting processes

 

That doesn’t really answer my question 😊

 

Sounds more Bhramaisk if you ask me. Just one Universal Mind with processes so it can experience itself.

 

Is that what you are saying?