Merging and guru yoga

[Apech]

Just now, Jonesboy said:

 

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?

 

 

Not really.

[Jonesboy]

Just now, Apech said:

 

Not really.

 

Then help me out.

 

If a Buddha sees others as Buddha’s who is he seeing if not other beings?

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Then help me out.

 

If a Buddha sees others as Buddha’s who is he seeing if not other beings?

 

relatively speaking other beings - from an absolute point of view just Mind (both at once).

[Jonesboy]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

relatively speaking other beings - from an absolute point of view just Mind (both at once).

 

Of course, one mind or multiple minds?

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Of course, one mind or multiple minds?

 

'One' only in the sense there is nothing other.  Multiple means 'many folded'.  So perhaps in reality it is both one and multiple both/and and neither.  You could say these are just concepts you may project upon it - sometimes useful and sometimes not.

[Jonesboy]

14 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

'One' only in the sense there is nothing other.  Multiple means 'many folded'.  So perhaps in reality it is both one and multiple both/and and neither.  You could say these are just concepts you may project upon it - sometimes useful and sometimes not.

 

I would agree, with the nothing other. It is all you. One with everything and everyone.

 

Each of us is unique with regard to our make up of obstructions, clarity and range.

 

Merging is realizing there is no separation. Yet there are differences from one being to the next, from one Buddha to another as I mentioned earlier.

 

It is those differences that get hit or worked on allowing you to clear out issues/obstructions.

 

Nothing is done outside of oneself, it is all you, all within you, you are not separate from any being or any thing. The deeper that realization the deeper the oneness or one with nothing other you could say.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I would agree, with the nothing other. It is all you. One with everything and everyone.

 

Each of us is unique with regard to our make up of obstructions, clarity and range.

 

Merging is realizing there is no separation. Yet there are differences from one being to the next, from one Buddha to another as I mentioned earlier.

 

It is those differences that get hit or worked on allowing you to clear out issues/obstructions.

 

Nothing is done outside of oneself, it is all you, all within you, you are not separate from any being or any thing. The deeper that realization the deeper the oneness or one with nothing other you could say.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I can see why perhaps Buddhism isn't your natural home.  But there are many valid paths IMO.  I don't quite agree about the 'differences' in terms of issues and obstructions but maybe this is one way of seeing things.

[Jonesboy]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I can see why perhaps Buddhism isn't your natural home.  But there are many valid paths IMO.  I don't quite agree about the 'differences' in terms of issues and obstructions but maybe this is one way of seeing things.

 

There are many types of Buddha’s right?

 

What do you think makes up the various types?

[Apech]

23 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

There are many types of Buddha’s right?

 

What do you think makes up the various types?

 

 

The various 'types' are Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya emanations expressed to help beings in a variety of ways dependent on the needs of those beings.

[forestofclarity]

4 hours 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?

This very notion is dismantled in the Madhyamaka argument called “neither one nor many.” From a Buddhist POV, you cannot even establish a single thing, so talk of one and many becomes incoherent in the context of emptiness.

[Jonesboy]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

The various 'types' are Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya emanations expressed to help beings in a variety of ways dependent on the needs of those beings.

 

What about this.

 

Buddhahood is different. Here is a list of the different types of Buddhas.

http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Three_types_of_Buddha

 

A Pratekya Buddha from what I have read achieves Buddhahood but doesn't have the same abilities.

 

"According to the Theravada school, paccekabuddhas ("one who has attained to supreme and perfect insight, but who dies without proclaiming the truth to the world")[2] are unable to teach the Dhamma, which requires[3] the omniscience and supreme compassion of a sammāsambuddha, and even he hesitates to attempt to teach."

[Jonesboy]

21 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

This very notion is dismantled in the Madhyamaka argument called “neither one nor many.” From a Buddhist POV, you cannot even establish a single thing, so talk of one and many becomes incoherent in the context of emptiness.

 

Are we each unique bubbles of consciousness or nothing?

 

Is consciousness a thing? With consciousness I am referring to say Buddha Mind.

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

What about this.

 

Buddhahood is different. Here is a list of the different types of Buddhas.

http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Three_types_of_Buddha

 

A Pratekya Buddha from what I have read achieves Buddhahood but doesn't have the same abilities.

 

"According to the Theravada school, paccekabuddhas ("one who has attained to supreme and perfect insight, but who dies without proclaiming the truth to the world")[2] are unable to teach the Dhamma, which requires[3] the omniscience and supreme compassion of a sammāsambuddha, and even he hesitates to attempt to teach."

 

This standard teaching of the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha and Bodhisattve/Buddha paths which you can find in any main Mahayana Buddhist text.

[Jonesboy]

Just now, Apech said:

 

This standard teaching of the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha and Bodhisattve/Buddha paths which you can find in any main Mahayana Buddhist text.

 

Yes they are different and dependent on the realization have limitations correct?

 

 I believe I have read where one type of Buddha can have the realization but no abilities.

 

The definitions seems more to do with their realization than the needs of those around them. Some choose not to teach at all or are limited in what they can teach.

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Yes they are different and dependent on the realization have limitations correct?

 

 I believe I have read where one type of Buddha can have the realization but no abilities.

 

The definitions seems more to do with their realization than the needs of those around them. Some choose not to teach at all or are limited in what they can teach.

 

Its to do with the different aspirations of the realised masters.

[Jonesboy]

5 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Its to do with the different aspirations of the realised masters.

 

This seems different than ones aspirations. More like a limitation.

 

 Sravaka-Buddhas (Pali:Savaka-Buddhas): gain Nirvana, but attain Enlightenment by hearing the Dhamma as initially taught by a Samma-Sambuddha. 

After attaining enlightenment, Sravaka-Buddhas might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the Dharma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because they depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a Samyaksam-Buddha.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Jonesboy

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Jonesboy said:

 

This seems different than ones aspirations.

 

 Sravaka-Buddhas (Pali:Savaka-Buddhas): gain Nirvana, but attain Enlightenment by hearing the Dhamma as initially taught by a Samma-Sambuddha. 

After attaining enlightenment, Sravaka-Buddhas might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the Dharma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because they depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a Samyaksam-Buddha.

 

 

Not really.  But what is your point?  I'm lost.

[Jonesboy]

Just to me there are different Buddha’s of various depth. Each are unique and when working with them they hit different areas.

 

Cross traditions and you can really experience the difference. To me this is a fact. A demonstrable fact.

 

There is an old picture thread around here where Jeff merged some Divine beings to various pictures. If one is able to feel energy you can feel the difference between each one. There are other ways of demonstrating such things but that would take working with someone, some trust, etc...

 

With that being said I guess there really is no point, just having a conversation, learning some Buddhism and sharing some of my views and practices.

[Fa Xin]

Kind of off topic but not really...

 

I just picked up Chogyam Trungpa's book "Cutting through Spiritual Materialism" at a used bookstore this week and spent the day reading it.

 

Excellent book so far.  He mentions some tantric and guru stuff in the book.  I may share some excerpts on my PPD soon.  I know he has a reputation or whatever, but the book so far is striking me as very deep.

 

In the past, I've found his talks/lectures are hard to follow, due to the way he speaks... but the book is very clear (and was transcribed from his lectures, funny enough...)

[forestofclarity]

 

On 7/28/2019 at 2:26 PM, Jonesboy said:

 

Are we each unique bubbles of consciousness or nothing?

 

Is consciousness a thing? With consciousness I am referring to say Buddha Mind.

 

Madhyamaka Buddhism denies that there is anything as a self. So what you're asking here is if there is one self or many selves? The answer is neither--- there aren't any selves. But that doesn't mean there's nothing--- obviously, there is a quite a lot happening. The problem is that the mind likes to divide things into neat, crisp categories but things don't work that way. In fact, from a Madhyamaka Buddhist POV, our intuitions are the opposite of how things are. We think if there are no selves underneath the surface, no bones or structure to reality so to speak, everything falls apart. But it is only because there are no selves that change and transformation are even possible. 

 

It reminds me of the particle/wave issue with photons in quantum physics. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Well, sometimes it acts like a photon, and sometimes it acts like a wave. It doesn't fit into our mental boxes, but that doesn't make it any less true. 

 

 

On 7/28/2019 at 4:23 PM, Fa Xin said:

Excellent book so far.  He mentions some tantric and guru stuff in the book.  I may share some excerpts on my PPD soon.  I know he has a reputation or whatever, but the book so far is striking me as very deep.

 

CTR has a good reputation in India/Nepal apparently. 

[Jonesboy]

13 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

 

Madhyamaka Buddhism denies that there is anything as a self. So what you're asking here is if there is one self or many selves? The answer is neither--- there aren't any selves. But that doesn't mean there's nothing--- obviously, there is a quite a lot happening. The problem is that the mind likes to divide things into neat, crisp categories but things don't work that way. In fact, from a Madhyamaka Buddhist POV, our intuitions are the opposite of how things are. We think if there are no selves underneath the surface, no bones or structure to reality so to speak, everything falls apart. But it is only because there are no selves that change and transformation are even possible. 

 

It reminds me of the particle/wave issue with photons in quantum physics. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Well, sometimes it acts like a photon, and sometimes it acts like a wave. It doesn't fit into our mental boxes, but that doesn't make it any less true. 

 

 

 

CTR has a good reputation in India/Nepal apparently. 

 

There are Buddha's, not just one, or a collective consciousness that projects out Buddha's as needed.

 

They see all beings as Buddha's.. so what are they seeing and referring to?

 

I would also agree that there is no soul, no Tom, a being in some place made up of things..

Edited July 30, 2019 by Jonesboy

[rex]

40 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

They see all beings as Buddha's.. so what are they seeing and referring to?

Beings who are lost in their own mental projections. Buddhas have pure perception but ordinary samsaric beings do not. As the quote goes:

Samsara is mind turned outwardly, lost in its projections. Nirvana is mind turned inwardly, recognizing its nature.
- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

[Jonesboy]

Just now, rex said:

Beings who are lost in their own mental projections. Buddhas have pure perception but ordinary samsaric beings do not. As the quote goes:

Samsara is mind turned outwardly, lost in its projections. Nirvana is mind turned inwardly, recognizing its nature.
- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

 

Sure, you have two Buddha's in perfect pure perception..what are they seeing and referring to?

 

The Buddha talked about previous Buddha's before him.. who or what was he referring to?

 

If you were to achieve Buddhahood.. There would be no rex, that is just a thought that you are trapped in to.. what is then projecting your form, what is keeping you in this form to help others?

 

 

[C T]

Is it possible to consider there is no Rex to begin with, to attain anything, let alone Buddhahood? 

 

(sorry Rex :))

 

 

"I manifested in a dreamlike way, to dreamlike beings, and taught a dreamlike Dharma;

In reality, I never taught, and never actually appeared." ~ Shakyamuni Buddha

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by C T

[Jonesboy]

10 minutes ago, C T said:

Is it possible to consider there is no Rex to begin with, to attain anything, let alone Buddhahood? 

 

(sorry Rex :))

 

 

Sure there is no Rex, attainment is a trap.. Yet there are Buddha's..are there not?

 

Or are you saying the goal of Buddhism is really to return to emptiness a cessation and all beings and things are a projection of an obscured mind. Yet, why is a Buddha around and giving teachings? Why doesn't he just cease once realized? What is giving the teachings to other beings?

Edited July 30, 2019 by Jonesboy