Merging and guru yoga

[Jonesboy]

1 minute ago, C T said:

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!  

 

Thank you CT.

 

I do reserve the right to bring in a different traditions teachings to help clarify my meaning on a topic. The last few pages have pretty much stayed within Buddhism.

 

Another way of looking at it for me, within my tradition, is finding the truth in all traditions so with that being said one shouldn't be surprised if I do sneak in a post here or there. This thread isn't just about Buddhism.

 

A pure Buddhist question is who/what is having thoughts of clarity when one has realized the Primordial State? Purely on topic before people decided to start asking me why I am asking Buddhist questions about Buddhism on a spiritual forum

[C T]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Thank you CT.

 

I do reserve the right to bring in a different traditions teachings to help clarify my meaning on a topic. The last few pages have pretty much stayed within Buddhism.

 

Another way of looking at it for me, within my tradition, is finding the truth in all traditions so with that being said one shouldn't be surprised if I do sneak in a post here or there. This thread isn't just about Buddhism.

 

A pure Buddhist question is who/what is having thoughts of clarity when one has realized the Primordial State? Purely on topic before people decided to start asking me why I am asking Buddhist questions about Buddhism on a spiritual forum

 

Im okay howsoever you want to slice it, man, although finding pan-traditional commonalities may not always be a smooth endeavour, at least for me. I wont even use the term "truth".... such a subjective proposition. 

 

As for your question, its difficult to proffer any meaningful answer since the question is based on the assumption that there is a fixed entity able to recognise his or her own level of clarity upon "realizing" the nature of mind. Accordingly, the peerless Dudjom Rinpoche explained thus: "But what — you may ask — is it like to recognize the face of non-dual awareness? Although one experiences it, one cannot describe it. It would be like a mute person trying to describe dreams. It is impossible to distinguish between oneself resting in non-dual awareness and the non-dual awareness one is experiencing." 

 

The idea of there being a state of clarity post realization is also just a thought, a pointing finger, a wave upon the ocean. The impersonal processes of mind doing its own thing, forming thoughts, is intricately woven into identity - we take for granted that "I" am responsible for thoughts arising, and we claim ownership. This claiming or fabrication of inherent ownership is the cause of samsara, or so the Buddha said. A Buddhist practitioner does not take the Buddha at his words. He is told to investigate and discover if indeed such is the case. In fact, nothing the Buddha taught has any inherent truth. Until one applies the teaching and allow personal insight to confirm the many considerations put forth by him, it is unwise to exclaim "This is such, that is not such", when in fact, the correct approach would be, "This is such because that is such". What you consider to be clarity is relative to your own understanding, and another cannot claim to share the exact understanding. 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by C T

[Jonesboy]

53 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Im okay howsoever you want to slice it, man, although finding pan-traditional commonalities may not always be a smooth endeavour, at least for me. I wont even use the term "truth".... such a subjective proposition. 

 

As for your question, its difficult to proffer any meaningful answer since the question is based on the assumption that there is a fixed entity able to recognise his or her own level of clarity upon "realizing" the nature of mind. Accordingly, the peerless Dudjom Rinpoche explained thus: "But what — you may ask — is it like to recognize the face of non-dual awareness? Although one experiences it, one cannot describe it. It would be like a mute person trying to describe dreams. It is impossible to distinguish between oneself resting in non-dual awareness and the non-dual awareness one is experiencing." 

 

The idea of there being a state of clarity post realization is also just a thought, a pointing finger, a wave upon the ocean. The impersonal processes of mind doing its own thing, forming thoughts, is intricately woven into identity - we take for granted that "I" am responsible for thoughts arising, and we claim ownership. This claiming or fabrication of inherent ownership is the cause of samsara, or so the Buddha said. A Buddhist practitioner does not take the Buddha at his words. He is told to investigate and discover if indeed such is the case. In fact, nothing the Buddha taught has any inherent truth. Until one applies the teaching and allow personal insight to confirm the many considerations put forth by him, it is unwise to exclaim "This is such, that is not such", when in fact, the correct approach would be, "This is such because that is such". What you consider to be clarity is relative to your own understanding, and another cannot claim to share the exact understanding. 

 

 

 

Maybe truth is the wrong term. More my realizations have been in line with much of Buddhist teachings..

 

I am not talking ownership of a thought or an "I" from a Buddhist perspective. Yet Dudjom Rinpoche formed thoughts to say the above. Is it the Universal Mind? There is no self, some place somewhere made up of things in some location. Again, the point is showing there is a unique.. something of differing levels of realization that expresses it.

 

Clarity is very important which is why Dzogchen talks about it being an aspect of the Primordial State.

[Jonesboy]

I found this on another forum. If others agrees it can help answer my question.

 

Quote

 

Do Buddha now all have different individual personalities? I was always taught that there is no difference between Buddha's and the only reason they have individual names is because we gave them different names to distinguish one Buddha manifestation from another, but to view them as different "Buddha's" is to create a duality in Enlightenment.

There are no differences between one Buddha and another in terms of realization; there are differences in terms of aspirations, and so on., which give rise to differences in sentient beings karmic connections with this buddhafield and that, and so on. In short, everyone who becomes a Buddha starts out as a sentient being, and there is a unique rosary of clarity that continues from the time of being a sentient being through the attainment of Vajradhara which forms the relative basis for Buddhahood.

 

Loppon Malcom

 

 

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

A pure Buddhist question is who/what is having thoughts of clarity when one has realized the Primordial State?

 

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

If there are "thoughts of clarity" then one has not realized the Primordial State.

It is the discursive mind that gives rise to thoughts of clarity.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

I am not talking ownership of a thought or an "I" from a Buddhist perspective.

 

I believe that you are but perhaps don't realize it.

It is hard-wired into us at the most fundamental levels of mind.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Yet Dudjom Rinpoche formed thoughts to say the above. Is it the Universal Mind? There is no self, some place somewhere made up of things in some location. Again, the point is showing there is a unique.. something of differing levels of realization that expresses it.

 

Dudjom Rinpoche's thoughts are just that, the thoughts of a person.

That is a manifestation of the discursive mind.

There is no "Universal Mind" posited in Buddhism or Bon.

We do speak of the Nature of Mind but thoughts are not a characteristic of the Nature of Mind, just the mind itself.

Buddhism also does not teach there is "no self."

In my opinion, that is a misunderstanding and an error of nihilism.

The "something of differing levels of realization that expresses it" is the human mind.

There are infinite degrees of subtlety and realization. 

What more does there need to be?

 

 

16 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Clarity is very important which is why Dzogchen talks about it being an aspect of the Primordial State.

 

Your posts suggest that you may be conflating different meanings that can be associated with the word clarity.

It is primarily used to point to the "awareness" or "presence" aspect of the Natural State but the word clarity in particular is used as it also connotes being clear or empty as well as precise.

[Jonesboy]

12 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

If there are "thoughts of clarity" then one has not realized the Primordial State.

It is the discursive mind that gives rise to thoughts of clarity.

 

 

 

I believe that you are but perhaps don't realize it.

It is hard-wired into us at the most fundamental levels of mind.

 

 

 

Dudjom Rinpoche's thoughts are just that, the thoughts of a person.

That is a manifestation of the discursive mind.

There is no "Universal Mind" posited in Buddhism or Bon.

We do speak of the Nature of Mind but thoughts are not a characteristic of the Nature of Mind, just the mind itself.

Buddhism also does not teach there is "no self."

In my opinion, that is a misunderstanding and an error of nihilism.

The "something of differing levels of realization that expresses it" is the human mind.

There are infinite degrees of subtlety and realization. 

What more does there need to be?

 

 

 

Your posts suggest that you may be conflating different meanings that can be associated with the word clarity.

It is primarily used to point to the "awareness" or "presence" aspect of the Natural State but the word clarity in particular is used as it also connotes being clear or empty as well as precise.

 

Thank you Steve for jumping in. Always have fun discussing things with you.

 

First, with regard to clarity and thoughts.

 

Quote

DZOGCHEN
THE SELF-PERFECTED STATE
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

 

The manifestation of the primordial state in all its aspects,
its "clarity," on the other hand, is called the nature. It is said
to be "self-perfected" (lhun grub), because it exists spontaneously
from the beginning, like the sun which shines in
space. Clarity is the pure quality of all thought and of all
perceived phenomena, uncontaminated by mental judgment.
For example, when we see a flower, we first perceive
its image without the mind entering into judgment, even if
this phase of perception only lasts for a fraction of a second.
Then, in a second phase, mental judgment enters into the
situation and one categorizes the perception, thinking,
"That's a flower, it's red, it has a specific scent, and so on."
Developing from this, attachment and aversion, acceptance
and rejection all arise, with the consequent creation of karma and transmigration. Clarity is the phase in which perception
is vivid and present, but the mind has not yet entered
into action. It is the spontaneous manifestation of the
individual's state. The same is true for thoughts: if we don't
follow them, and don't become caught up in mental judgment,
they too are part of our natural clarity.

 

The Lankavatara Sutra discusses Universal Mind.

 

Spoiler

Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system?

 

The Blessed One replied: The sense-minds and their centralized discriminating-mind are related to the external world, which is a manifestation of itself and is given over to perceiving, discriminating, and grasping its Maya-like appearances. Universal Mind (Alaya-Vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits. Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions. Universal Mind is like a great ocean, its surface ruffled by waves and surges but its depths remaining forever unmoved. In itself it is devoid of personality and all that belongs to it, but by reason of the defilements upon its face it is like an actor and plays a variety of parts, among which a mutual functioning takes place and the mind-system arises. The principle of intellection becomes divided and mind the functions of mind, the evil out-flowings of mind, take on individuation. The sevenfold gradation of mind appears: namely, intuitive self-realization, thinking-desiring-discriminating, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and all their interactions and reactions take their rise.

 

The discriminating-mind is the cause of the sense-minds and is their support and with them is kept functioning as it describes and becomes attached to a world of objects, and then, by means of its habit-energy, it defiles the face of Universal Mind. Thus Universal Mind becomes the storage and clearinghouse of all the accumulated products of mentation and action since beginning-less time.

 

Between Universal Mind and the individual discriminating-mind is the intuitive-mind (manas), which is dependent upon Universal Mind for its cause and support and enters into relation with both. It partakes of the universality of Universal Mind, shares its purity, and like it, is above form and momentary-ness. It is through the intuitive-mind that the good non out-flowings emerge, are manifested and are realized. Fortunate it is that intuition is not momentary for if the enlightenment, which comes by intuition, were momentary the wise would loose their "wise-ness" which they do not. But the intuitive-mind enters into relations with the lower mind-system, shares its experiences and reflects upon its activities.

 

Intuitive-mind is one with Universal Mind by reason of its participation in Transcendental Intelligence (Arya-jnana), and is one with the mind-system by its comprehension of differentiated knowledge (Vijnana). Intuitive-mind has no body of its own nor any marks by which it can be differentiated. Universal Mind is its cause and support but it is evolved along with the notion of an ego and what belongs to it, to which it clings and upon which it reflects. Through intuitive-mind, by the faculty of intuition, which is a mingling of both identity and perceiving, the inconceivable wisdom of Universal Mind is revealed and made realizable. Like Universal Mind it cannot be the source of error. 

 

The discriminating mind is a dancer and a magician with the objective world as his stage. Intuitive-mind is the wise jester who travels with the magician and reflects upon his emptiness and transiency. Universal Mind keeps the record and knows what must be and what may be. It is because of the activities of the discrimination mind that error rises and an objective world evolves and the nation of an ego soul becomes established. If and when the discriminating mind can be gotten rid of, the whole mind system will cease to function and universal Mind will alone remain. Getting rid of the discriminating mind removes the cause of all error.

 

Differing levels of realization is me referring to the different types of Buddha's as was discussed earlier. I should have been clearer.. but to me if a Buddha is restricted or limited.. it is about realization/clarity.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Jonesboy

[s1va]

1 minute ago, Jonesboy said:

The Lankavatar Sutra discusses Universal Mind.

 

Yes, I have found the discussion about Universal mind in Lankavatara Sutra fascinating.  The same sutra and several others also talk about 'no self' and emphasize upon it.  We can always discuss and interpret it in various ways.  Following is the full text of the Sutra for anyone interested.

 

 

http://buddhasutra.com/files/lankavatara_sutra.htm

 

In my view clarity is a state of mind.  It is not about thoughts, but thoughts can arise and exist in the state of clarity.

[C T]

Do clouds exist? lol 

 

They may have an appearance of adorning the sky, but really, they do not have any inherent existence. 

Yet, they have apparent mass, and relative to the size of an aircraft, can be "felt" on contact. 

Thoughts no different. 

[Jonesboy]

6 minutes ago, C T said:

Do clouds exist? lol 

 

They may have an appearance of adorning the sky, but really, they do not have any inherent existence. 

Yet, they have apparent mass, and relative to the size of an aircraft, can be "felt" on contact. 

Thoughts no different. 

 

I agree yet ones attachment or clarity can have a huge impact on ones life.

[C T]

18 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I agree yet ones attachment or clarity can have a huge impact on ones life.

 

mm hmm, no doubt. 

[doc benway]

6 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Thank you Steve for jumping in. Always have fun discussing things with you.

 

First, with regard to clarity and thoughts.

 

 

The Lankavatara Sutra discusses Universal Mind.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system?

 

The Blessed One replied: The sense-minds and their centralized discriminating-mind are related to the external world, which is a manifestation of itself and is given over to perceiving, discriminating, and grasping its Maya-like appearances. Universal Mind (Alaya-Vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits. Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions. Universal Mind is like a great ocean, its surface ruffled by waves and surges but its depths remaining forever unmoved. In itself it is devoid of personality and all that belongs to it, but by reason of the defilements upon its face it is like an actor and plays a variety of parts, among which a mutual functioning takes place and the mind-system arises. The principle of intellection becomes divided and mind the functions of mind, the evil out-flowings of mind, take on individuation. The sevenfold gradation of mind appears: namely, intuitive self-realization, thinking-desiring-discriminating, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and all their interactions and reactions take their rise.

 

The discriminating-mind is the cause of the sense-minds and is their support and with them is kept functioning as it describes and becomes attached to a world of objects, and then, by means of its habit-energy, it defiles the face of Universal Mind. Thus Universal Mind becomes the storage and clearinghouse of all the accumulated products of mentation and action since beginning-less time.

 

Between Universal Mind and the individual discriminating-mind is the intuitive-mind (manas), which is dependent upon Universal Mind for its cause and support and enters into relation with both. It partakes of the universality of Universal Mind, shares its purity, and like it, is above form and momentary-ness. It is through the intuitive-mind that the good non out-flowings emerge, are manifested and are realized. Fortunate it is that intuition is not momentary for if the enlightenment, which comes by intuition, were momentary the wise would loose their "wise-ness" which they do not. But the intuitive-mind enters into relations with the lower mind-system, shares its experiences and reflects upon its activities.

 

Intuitive-mind is one with Universal Mind by reason of its participation in Transcendental Intelligence (Arya-jnana), and is one with the mind-system by its comprehension of differentiated knowledge (Vijnana). Intuitive-mind has no body of its own nor any marks by which it can be differentiated. Universal Mind is its cause and support but it is evolved along with the notion of an ego and what belongs to it, to which it clings and upon which it reflects. Through intuitive-mind, by the faculty of intuition, which is a mingling of both identity and perceiving, the inconceivable wisdom of Universal Mind is revealed and made realizable. Like Universal Mind it cannot be the source of error. 

 

The discriminating mind is a dancer and a magician with the objective world as his stage. Intuitive-mind is the wise jester who travels with the magician and reflects upon his emptiness and transiency. Universal Mind keeps the record and knows what must be and what may be. It is because of the activities of the discrimination mind that error rises and an objective world evolves and the nation of an ego soul becomes established. If and when the discriminating mind can be gotten rid of, the whole mind system will cease to function and universal Mind will alone remain. Getting rid of the discriminating mind removes the cause of all error.

 

Differing levels of realization is me referring to the different types of Buddha's as was discussed earlier. I should have been clearer.. but to me if a Buddha is restricted or limited.. it is about realization/clarity.

If a Buddha is restricted or limited, she is not a Buddha. The restriction is about mind interfering. That which realizes or has clarity is liberated.

[doc benway]

6 hours ago, s1va said:

In my view clarity is a state of mind.  It is not about thoughts, but thoughts can arise and exist in the state of clarity.

 

The clarity that Norbu refers to is not a state of mind. It is the primordially pure essence of awareness.

[forestofclarity]

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions, or even questioning Buddhism. My personal, subjective sense of your posts was that you were not so much interested in learning about Buddhism, but rather you wished to fit Buddhism into a model you had already constructed. 

 

The tricky thing about Buddhism is the language and the many traditions. The same words mean different things in different contexts. In other words, there is a type of secret code that is usually only explained in person by a teacher. Not only that, but the meanings are very contextual--- words don't stand by themselves. They are a part of an interconnected web of meanings. One reason why Tibetan Buddhists study so many Buddhist philosophies is to tease apart these meanings and avoid the numerous pitfalls to spiritual practice. It gets even more confusing with the same word is used by other traditions. For example, atman in a Yogacara Buddhist context merely refers to the (illusory) subjective side of experience. But in Vedanta, the meaning is much different-- atman is Brahman for example. In addition, atman can also just mean the mere "I" as in "I walked to the store." Some people hear the Buddha in the Pali Canon saying atta (Pali for atman), atta and think that means he is obsessed with a permanent soul! 

 

Many Vedantins and Shaivites that I've known and studied with have taught that emptiness is Buddhism is roughly equivalent to the experience of the anandamaya kosha or causal body. Yet this would be roughly equivalent to the alaya vijnana in Mahayana Buddhism, which is clearly a state of ignornace. But then vijnana is Vedanta may refer to something else--- a specific part of the mind for example (vijnanamaya kosha). Then the alaya vijnana may mean something else entirely in Kagyu Mahamudra. And it gets even more confusing in Pali, because the equivalent for manas, citta, and vijnana are all mixed up, but these have precise definitions in Vedanta.  

 

So you can see, it can be quite challenging without the guidance of an experienced teacher. And given the ambiguity of the words, it is easy enough to read what we want into them. 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

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.

[snip]

13 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I find nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

 

All the best.

 

[doc benway]

9 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

Clarity is the pure quality of all thought and of all
perceived phenomena, uncontaminated by mental judgment.

 

Clarity as I’ve been taught,

is not a thought,

nor is it thought,

not a state of mind,

nor even experienced by mind.

 

it is a characteristic of the mind’s Essence which is the Ground of All thought and perception.

 

It is not generated or induced,

never shared, merged, maintained,

 

It is always ever-present,

often unseen,

indestructible, complete, and perfectly clear,

sometimes revealing its nature 

to the Blessed Ones!

 

 

 

[Jonesboy]

13 hours ago, steve said:

If a Buddha is restricted or limited, she is not a Buddha. The restriction is about mind interfering. That which realizes or has clarity is liberated.

 

I am referring to Buddhist teachings that does say that some Buddha's are limited.

 

Quote

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."

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]

13 hours ago, steve said:

 

The clarity that Norbu refers to is not a state of mind. It is the primordially pure essence of awareness.

 

I didn't say it was a state of mind, different states of mind is a perfect reference of one still in local mind.

 

Yet that essence still has thoughts...

[s1va]

Just now, Jonesboy said:

 

I didn't say it was a state of mind, different states of mind is a perfect reference of one still in local mind.

 

Yet that essence still has thoughts...

 

I mentioned the state of mind.  I stated it's my view and I was not referring to Norbu or Dzogchen.

[Jonesboy]

10 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions, or even questioning Buddhism. My personal, subjective sense of your posts was that you were not so much interested in learning about Buddhism, but rather you wished to fit Buddhism into a model you had already constructed. 

 

The tricky thing about Buddhism is the language and the many traditions. The same words mean different things in different contexts. In other words, there is a type of secret code that is usually only explained in person by a teacher. Not only that, but the meanings are very contextual--- words don't stand by themselves. They are a part of an interconnected web of meanings. One reason why Tibetan Buddhists study so many Buddhist philosophies is to tease apart these meanings and avoid the numerous pitfalls to spiritual practice. It gets even more confusing with the same word is used by other traditions. For example, atman in a Yogacara Buddhist context merely refers to the (illusory) subjective side of experience. But in Vedanta, the meaning is much different-- atman is Brahman for example. In addition, atman can also just mean the mere "I" as in "I walked to the store." Some people hear the Buddha in the Pali Canon saying atta (Pali for atman), atta and think that means he is obsessed with a permanent soul! 

 

Many Vedantins and Shaivites that I've known and studied with have taught that emptiness is Buddhism is roughly equivalent to the experience of the anandamaya kosha or causal body. Yet this would be roughly equivalent to the alaya vijnana in Mahayana Buddhism, which is clearly a state of ignornace. But then vijnana is Vedanta may refer to something else--- a specific part of the mind for example (vijnanamaya kosha). Then the alaya vijnana may mean something else entirely in Kagyu Mahamudra. And it gets even more confusing in Pali, because the equivalent for manas, citta, and vijnana are all mixed up, but these have precise definitions in Vedanta.  

 

So you can see, it can be quite challenging without the guidance of an experienced teacher. And given the ambiguity of the words, it is easy enough to read what we want into them. 

 

 

 

[snip]

 

 

I would agree that there are clear differences between Buddhism and it's terms and meanings compared to Vedantins and Shaivites.

 

I do have my view but I have not really tried to express it. They are all separate. My view does incorporate many aspects of different traditions but that is not what I have been doing.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Jonesboy

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I mentioned the state of mind.  I stated it's my view and I was not referring to Norbu or Dzogchen.

 

I know Siva, I liked your post but I was referring to Steve's post..

[Jonesboy]

10 hours ago, steve said:

 

Clarity as I’ve been taught,

is not a thought,

nor is it thought,

not a state of mind,

nor even experienced by mind.

 

it is a characteristic of the mind’s Essence which is the Ground of All thought and perception.

 

It is not generated or induced,

never shared, merged, maintained,

 

It is always ever-present,

often unseen,

indestructible, complete, and perfectly clear,

sometimes revealing its nature 

to the Blessed Ones!

 

 

 

 

Clarity to me has many aspects.. I am just quoting a Dzogchen Master and going from there..

 

We can say it is the ground of all thought but then again.. from that ground, thoughts arise.. what then is thinking?

[Jeff]

30 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Clarity to me has many aspects.. I am just quoting a Dzogchen Master and going from there..

 

We can say it is the ground of all thought but then again.. from that ground, thoughts arise.. what then is thinking?

 

Yes, there is no separation between the ground and the thought itself. Any such perceived separation is an illusion of the mind itself. Just like when people think that meditation is somehow different than normal daily living, it is not, just a perceived illusion of different “states”. 

[rex]

On 30/07/2019 at 10:13 PM, Jonesboy said:

 

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

 

Sorry Jonesboy, I totally misread this question and read it as 'What's Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya got to do with all this?', hence the slightly exasperated response. Simple answer is I don't know, but will hazard a totally personal, non-authoritative guess.

 

Dharmakaya itself has no will but the Sambhogakaya does. There is a phrase, 'one ground, two paths'  where the difference between ordinary beings and buddhas is that of non-recognition of the Dharmakaya. Buddhas recognise the Dharmakaya and see all phenomena as its infinite magical display and will enters with their activity.

 

On 31/07/2019 at 7:47 PM, 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.

 

On 01/08/2019 at 2:07 PM, Jonesboy said:

 

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.

 

People ask me tough questions and I hope, I ask them back.

 

I find nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

 

I remember an exchange we had on this thread where your motivation for studying Buddhism as a non-Buddhist  was  to connect to sources of wisdom, irrespective of source and traditionalist views, and also teach others how to do this. With your clear interest in Buddhism, does your practice still involve merging with Buddhas? And if so, from your experience of this, where do you find that Buddhism is wrong?

 

Do you have a 'home tradition' or are you more like a honey bee receiving the 'nectar of wisdom' from many different flowers?

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by rex
Spelling

[ilumairen]

58 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I know Siva, I liked your post but I was referring to Steve's post..

 

And Steve's post was in response to s1va's post - which he quoted. There were no assertions at all in regard to what you didn't say.

[Jonesboy]

5 minutes ago, rex said:

 

Sorry Jonesboy, I totally misread this question and read it as 'What's Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya got to do with all this?', hence the slightly exasperated response. Simple answer is I don't know, but will hazard a totally personal, non-authorative guess.

 

Dharmakaya itself has no will but the Sambhogakaya does. There is a phrase, 'one ground, two paths'  where the difference between ordinary beings and buddhas is that of non-recognition of the Dharmakaya. Buddhas recognise the Dharmakaya and see all phenomena as its infinite magical display and will enters with their activity.

 

 

 

I remember an exchange we had on this thread where your motivation for studying Buddhism as a non-Buddhist  was  to connect to sources of wisdom, irrespective of source and traditionalist views, and also teach others how to do this. With your clear interest in Buddhism, does your practice still involve merging with Buddhas? And if so, from your experience of this, where do you find that Buddhism is wrong?

 

Do you have a 'home tradition' or are you more like a honey bee receiving the 'nectar of wisdom' from many different flowers?

 

 

 

Thank you Rex for that explanation.

 

Yes, I still merge/connect with Divine Beings.

 

Where to me Buddhism is wrong is that there is no such thing as the last few pages has demonstrated where there are two beings that can merge. Buddhism also doesn't believe that another person can directly introduce others to differing states of mind or to give one a direct taste of different states of being. It does not believe in a sharing of oneness with others. It does not believe that one being can help another let go of obstructions through the sharing of ones clarity for instance

 

All the above is part of my practice and also very much a part of Kashmir Shaivism. Yet, KS get's some stuff wrong that Buddhism get's right in my view.

 

I would like to say I don't teach others to connect to sources of wisdom, irrespective of source and traditionalist views. I think it is important and very respectful to understand those traditional views. If I am in a Hindu section of the forum I will stay within KS, if in the Buddhism section I try to stay pure Buddhism, if in the general.. well I am free to share my views a little more openly.

[Jonesboy]

5 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

And Steve's post was in response to s1va's post - which he quoted. There were no assertions at all in regard to what you didn't say.

 

Well, it was 5:45 am.. I hadn't had any coffee yet.. I am always a little slow till bedtime anyways.. Thank God it's Friday!!