Merging and guru yoga

[ilumairen]

 

9 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

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?

 

Try this: find a being not dependent on your thought description.. before the words and names, what is there?

[C T]

23 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

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?

 

I don't have any ultimate answers Im afraid, my friend. 

Don't think its really helpful to speculate as that might create more confusion, as is the nature of ordinary discursive minds. 

 

All I can say is when we slowly disperse the layers of mental obscuration, our inner vision begins to clarify accordingly, until pure perception reaches a point of constant stability, meaning everything appears like a dream, and buddha activity takes place only in that dreamlike world of relatvity, and in reality (the ultimate of ultimates?), nothing happens at all except constant flux (of energy?) without a beginning  - I don't really know, save for very tiny glimpses now and then, so please don't take these words as final or authoritative.  

 

I suppose the above is one way to explain how that Zen saying to kill the Buddha came about. 

 

One of my teachers said that life is one big uncertainty, and the more we get okay with that understanding, 

the better our meditation becomes. This realization helps to affirm what Buddha taught about having no position 

being the ideal position. He said that "Yes" and "No" keeps changing all the time, so a practitioner will do well to

hang loose by avoiding fixated thinking that things are either this way or that way. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by C T

[Jonesboy]

31 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

Try this: find a being not dependent on your thought description.. before the words and names, what is there?

 

That is AV.. silence   yet what is experiencing that silence

[Jonesboy]

21 minutes ago, C T said:

 

I don't have any ultimate answers Im afraid, my friend. 

Don't think its really helpful to speculate as that might create more confusion, as is the nature of ordinary discursive minds. 

 

All I can say is when we slowly disperse the layers of mental obscuration, our inner vision begins to clarify accordingly, until pure perception reaches a point of constant stability, meaning everything appears like a dream, and buddha activity takes place only in that dreamlike world of relatvity, and in reality (the ultimate of ultimates?), nothing happens at all except constant flux (of energy?) without a beginning  - I don't really know, save for very tiny glimpses now and then, so please don't take these words as final or authoritative.  

 

I suppose the above is one way to explain how that Zen saying to kill the Buddha came about. 

 

One of my teachers said that life is one big uncertainty, and the more we get okay with that understanding, 

the better our meditation becomes. This realization helps to affirm what Buddha taught about having no position 

being the ideal position. He said that "Yes" and "No" keeps changing all the time, so a practitioner will do well to

hang loose by avoiding fixated thinking that things are either this way or that way. 

 

I get you CT I guess my point is this.

 

Quote

buddha activity takes place only in that dreamlike world of relatvity, and in reality (the ultimate of ultimates?), nothing happens at all except constant flux (of energy?) without a beginning 

 

There is a unique being that experiences that dreamlike world, that has realized the constant flux of energy.

 

The Buddha said no Self but that doesn't mean there isn't a something that experiences or has realized it.. be it Universal, Primordial.. however you want to say it.

 

Who/what is creating Pure Lands?

[C T]

4 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

That is AV.. silence   yet what is experiencing that silence

 

There is experiencing, but the experiencer is not found  

[Jonesboy]

Just now, C T said:

 

There is experiencing, but the experiencer is not found  

 

Meant to edit my post..

 

If there is experiencing.. something has to experience it

[C T]

7 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Meant to edit my post..

 

If there is experiencing.. something has to experience it

 

There is either a recognition of on-going experience, or a conception of an experiencer. 

The moment an experiencer is conceived, that is already a past moment. 

So in actual fact, this "thing", being found only as a recollection of thought, is empty and just a memory. 

[Jonesboy]

5 minutes ago, C T said:

 

There is either a recognition of on-going experience, or a conception of an experiencer. 

The moment an experiencer is conceived, that is already a past moment. 

So in actual fact, this "thing", being found only as a recollection of thought, is empty and just a memory. 

 

Not really.. A Buddha talks, forms words, writes and listens to others. It is a present moment thing.. not a thing of the past. Something is listening, writing and talking in the present moment. The attachments are empty.

 

[ilumairen]

1 minute ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Not really.. A Buddha talks, forms words, writes and listens to others. It is a present moment thing.. not a thing of the past. Something is listening, writing and talking in the present moment. The attachments are empty.

 

 

I've mentioned "in equipoise" and "post equipose" before.. 

 

In equipose there is nothing to say and no one to say it.

 

Post equipoise, conversations may be had - and they're empty. The words shared and the ear hearing them or eye seeing them - all empty. 

[rex]

6 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

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?

 

 

Conceptually the answers to these questions are quite straight forward, but I’m no Buddhist scholar. Speaking as one confused man to another, I can’t presume to know what a Buddha perceives and can only extrapolate and speculate from some general principles.

 

At the Dharmakaya level there is no differentiation at all, Buddhas don’t exist. At the Sambhogakaya level the two Buddhas would perceive differentiation and see forms which have spontaneously arisen from the Dharmakaya in response to the specific needs, capacities and collective merit of beings. At  the Nirmanakaya level they would perceive what other ordinary beings would perceive, a  form of flesh and blood. Logically they would see all three levels simultaneously.

 

When Buddha spoke of previous Buddhas he could have been referring to the spontaneous manifestations of the Dharmakaya as well as the different types of Buddhas who attained Buddhahood in different ways (https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Category:Paths_and_Stages). 

 

A number of factors would determine the ability to benefit others if Buddhahood was achieved in the present form. Firstly the amount of merit accumulated to be able to benefit others and secondly the karmic connections others have with the form and their merit to be able to receive benefit from that specific form. The body would continue to manifest according to the karmic causes and conditions which bought it into interdependent existence and would continue to be subject to that karma and interdependence.

Edited July 30, 2019 by rex
Formatting

[Jonesboy]

2 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

I've mentioned "in equipoise" and "post equipose" before.. 

 

In equipose there is nothing to say and no one to say it.

 

Post equipoise, conversations may be had - and they're empty. The words shared and the ear hearing them or eye seeing them - all empty. 

 

There is still something that goes from equipoise to post equipoise.

[Jonesboy]

1 hour ago, rex said:

Conceptually the answers to these questions are quite straight forward, but I’m no Buddhist scholar. Speaking as one confused man to another, I can’t presume to know what a Buddha perceives and can only extrapolate and speculate from some general principles.

 

At the Dharmakaya level there is no differentiation at all, Buddhas don’t exist. At the Sambhogakaya level the two Buddhas would perceive differentiation and see forms which have spontaneously arisen from the Dharmakaya in response to the specific needs, capacities and collective merit of beings. At  the Nirmanakaya level they would perceive what other ordinary beings would perceive, a  form of flesh and blood. Logically they would see all three levels simultaneously.

 

When Buddha spoke of previous Buddhas he could have been referring to the spontaneous manifestations of the Dharmakaya as well as the different types of Buddhas who attained Buddhahood in different ways (https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Category:Paths_and_Stages). 

 

A number of factors would determine the ability to benefit others if Buddhahood was achieved in the present form. Firstly the amount of merit accumulated to be able to benefit others and secondly the karmic connections others have with the form and their merit to be able to receive benefit from that specific form. The body would continue to manifest according to the karmic causes and conditions which bought it into interdependent existence and would continue to be subject to that karma and interdependence.

 

What is it that has the will to go from the Dharmakaya to the Sambhogakaya?

[ilumairen]

Just now, Jonesboy said:

 

There is still something that goes from equipoise to post equipoise.

 

Not until the idea of this "something" coalesces..

[ilumairen]

5 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

What is it that has the will to go from the Dharmakaya to the Sambhogakaya?

 

Perhaps "will" isn't quite the right word? Instead of "has the will to go", naturally manifests according to conditions may be closer. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by ilumairen

[Apech]

7 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

What is it that has the will to go from the Dharmakaya to the Sambhogakaya?

 

Actually as I understand it, there is no going from one kaya to another.  I used the image before on another thread of looking at a pool of water or looking into it.  It seems different ... but same water of course.  But you have a point about what chooses or wills to see it this way or that way.  Indeed what is 'will' anyway.  Interesting thought.

[rex]

18 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

What is it that has the will to go from the Dharmakaya to the Sambhogakaya?

What an astonishing question for a thread on guru yoga! Have you heard of the Prayer to the Three Kaya Guru? @Apech, not part of your tradition either?

Edited July 30, 2019 by rex

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, rex said:

What an astonishing question for a thread on guru yoga! Have you heard of the Prayer to the Three Kaya Guru? @Apech, not part of your tradition either?

 

It is connected but not one I know or use.  But nice - thanks.

[Jonesboy]

45 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Perhaps "will" isn't quite the right word? Instead of "has the will to go", naturally manifests according to conditions may be closer. 

 

More of a KS thinking but one could look at it much like Apech mentioned. The Buddha could teleport, see with his Divine Eye. He would choose to do so or not depending on the audience and if it would help or not.

 

The Primordial State has 3 aspects. Void, energy and clarity. What then is having thoughts? What is then using intent/will to do anything like see or teleport or to reprimand a student?

[Jonesboy]

48 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Actually as I understand it, there is no going from one kaya to another.  I used the image before on another thread of looking at a pool of water or looking into it.  It seems different ... but same water of course.  But you have a point about what chooses or wills to see it this way or that way.  Indeed what is 'will' anyway.  Interesting thought.

Quote

 

Thinking more of intent. If a Buddha wanted to grow in size it is will/intent that does it.

 

Mixing traditions but to help with my meaning.

 

From the Shiva Sutras.

 

Quote

1.13. icchā śaktirūmā kumāri

 

His will is the energy of Lord Śiva and it is called umā and kumāri, or for such a yogī his will is one with the energy of Lord Śiva, unobstructable, completely independent, always given to play.

 

1.14. dṛiśyaṁ śarīram

 

This entire perceived world is his own self, or 
His own body is just like an object to him.

 

1.15. hṛidaye cittasaṁghaṭṭād dṛiśyasvāpadarśanam

 

When his thoughts are diverted to the center of God consciousness then he feels the existence of God con- sciousness in oneness in the objective world and in the world of negation.

 

1.16. śuddha-tattva-saṁdhānādvā’paśuśaktiḥ

 

Or by aiming at the pure element of Śiva he possesses Śiva’s unlimited energy.

 

1.17. vitarka ātmajñānam

 

Any inference of such a yogī is knowledge of his own real self.

 

1.18. lokānandaḥ samādhisukham

 

The joy of his mystical trance (samādhi) is bliss for the whole universe.

 

1.19. śaktisandhāne śarīrotpattiḥ

 

By infusing his energy of will the embodiment of that which is willed occurs at once.

 

[Jonesboy]

57 minutes ago, rex said:

What an astonishing question for a thread on guru yoga! Have you heard of the Prayer to the Three Kaya Guru? @Apech, not part of your tradition either?

 

No, I had not.

 

Thank you.

[forestofclarity]

If you want to see as a Buddha sees, there is only one way: become a Buddha. Building a mental model of a state that is beyond conception is not going to be helpful.

 

I think a lot of confusion arises when we start at the most subtle teachings without first cultivating other teachings, like Abhidharma and Madhyamika. YMMV.

 

On 7/30/2019 at 6:57 AM, Jonesboy said:

 

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..

 

[Jonesboy]

15 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

If you want to see as a Buddha sees, there is only one way: become a Buddha. Building a mental model of a state that is beyond conception is not going to be helpful.

 

I think a lot of confusion arises when we start at the most subtle teachings without first cultivating other teachings, like Abhidharma and Madhyamika. YMMV.

 

 

 

I think I am challenging concepts not building them.

 

As this thread describes from the very beginning, I am not a Buddhist and my practices are much different than anything in Buddhism.

[forestofclarity]

May I ask a side question? If you are not a Buddhist, your practices are much different than Buddhism, and I assume you are happy with said tradition and practices, what is the point of wasting time learning about another path? Wouldn't your time and energy be better spent on clarifying and deepening your current path? 

 

I say that because an unwillingness to engage in Buddhism on its own terms, coupled with a demand that it disclose to you its precious secrets, is a bit---- misguided? 

 

Having said that, Tibetan Buddhism is not anti-conceptual. In fact, obtaining the proper concepts is considered quite essential to reaching the proper non-conceptual. Of course it must be so or we would be enlightened when we went into deep sleep, or a drunk stupor, or some similar state. 

 

4 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I think I am challenging concepts not building them.

 

As this thread describes from the very beginning, I am not a Buddhist and my practices are much different than anything in Buddhism.

 

[Jonesboy]

13 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

May I ask a side question? If you are not a Buddhist, your practices are much different than Buddhism, and I assume you are happy with said tradition and practices, what is the point of wasting time learning about another path? Wouldn't your time and energy be better spent on clarifying and deepening your current path? 

 

I say that because an unwillingness to engage in Buddhism on its own terms, coupled with a demand that it disclose to you its precious secrets, is a bit---- misguided? 

 

Having said that, Tibetan Buddhism is not anti-conceptual. In fact, obtaining the proper concepts is considered quite essential to reaching the proper non-conceptual. Of course it must be so or we would be enlightened when we went into deep sleep, or a drunk stupor, or some similar state. 

 

 

 

I have found many truths and parallels in my path in Buddhism, the same could be said for Kashmir Shaivism and the teachings of Jesus.

 

I like to learn and study all traditions.

 

Every moment of every day is working on my current path. Having these discussions is just a small part of that.

 

I am more than willing to discuss Buddhism on it's own terms. I do it all the time. If you were to search for the term Rigpa you would see lot's of discussions from me on the topic. Asking clarifying questions about Buddhism is what a student of the art is suppose to do is it not?

 

My latest question in the thread is for a Buddha, who/what is having thoughts of clarity? That seems to be a tough question. 

 

This thread was a split from what does Buddhism get wrong. You will see in an depth discussion of merging and guru stuff that is far different than Buddhism. Much of which Buddhism say's isn't possible. A thread ebbs and flows from Buddhism to my own practices and back and forth. People ask me tough questions and I hope, I ask them back.

 

I find nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

 

All the best.

[C T]

Absolutely fine with asking questions, Jonesboy. 

 

To avoid confusion that pops up the odd time when questions veer into comparisons with other traditions where tendency to conflate often arises,  might it be more helpful to narrow the questions in their appropriate contexts? What may appear parallel to you may not always be that way in fact, and sometimes its good to bear in mind that there will always be subtle meanings and application differences which can lead to outcomes of understanding that likely vary from person to person, so I guess what Forestofemptiness is asking for is the consideration of the usefulness of approximating the notion that what is found to be workable (leading to insight) in one tradition may not necessarily work the same way in another. This is not to say it wont work for you, but in terms of discourse, such approximations seldom yield much clarity. Thats how i would tend to view it. Perhaps others might have a different take. 

 

Truly delighted to hear you are working daily on your path, and you are wished the very best!