Merging and guru yoga

[s1va]

Hi CT,

 

Good to see you back in the forums.  I was on a break when you got back.  Appreciate your sharing also.

 

I am off to somewhere right now.  When I get back. I will elaborate on what I stated based on my experiences since you asked.  You may not agree, but that's fine.  My explanation might borrow a bit from KS and other tantra traditions, just a forewarning.  It won't be entirely from Buddhist perspective. - Siva.

 

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

How is "our relationship to the ground and thought", different than the "ground and thought itself"?

It all depends on what we identify with in any given moment.

 

 

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

You are all of it.  The perceived difference (or separation) is why there is a difference between meditation and normal daily living.  And, I would agree that once they are the same, that would be the classical definition of being enlightened in most traditions. But, that is really just a starting point beyond the local body mind in a tradition like Kashmir Shaivism (and others).  That next phase is the fundamental difference of KS and more classical hindu traditions.  In Taoism, it is the difference from going from being a "stream of the universe" to becoming a "valley of the universe" (as found in the TTC chapter 28).

 

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, steve said:

It all depends on what we identify with in any given moment.

 

 

Ok, I get it.  But, as I stated in the text above, you are all of it.  No need to separate or try to deny part of it.  Merge it all in.  

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Sorry if I'm adding cross-talk, here. 

 

The biggest hurdle to "enlightenment" is the belief that "I am not enlightened" (or in the case of the buddhist, "Not I is not enlightened").   (yeah I know this gets many folks riled up and up in arms and what have you...) 

 

An equally big hurdle, arguably bigger because it is more insidious, is the belief that "I am enlightened."

That is simply another conceptual formation of mind.

 

You don't need to dance around the emptiness of "I" with me.

I'm not too much of a stickler for nomenclature.

 

 

2 hours ago, dwai said:

 

Really the difference to me is like "ocean and waves". The ground is the ocean and the thoughts are the waves. It is a matter of identification. Which in turn is a result of the chronic patterns of thoughts that have been allowed to develop. 

 

I agree fully.

The question is what is the "I" identifying with in each and every given moment of our lives.

It is important for us to be brutally (and lovingly) honest with ourselves about this point.

 

 

2 hours ago, dwai said:

 

All difference of traditions aside, the process really is the same across the board -- 3 steps, from a practical perspective. 

1. Realize that you are not your body, mind/thoughts, emotions and feelings. That gives us the ability to strip away the habit forming parts little by little.
2. Realize that thoughts, emotions, feelings (aka mind) and the body arise in you ("not you" if it makes one feel better).
3. Realize that you were already and always the empty ground/essence of knowing and being, and that everything is already of your own nature (empty), and hence not different/not separate from you.

That which knows that normal daily living is being experienced in a meditative on one day and a non-meditative state on another, is that ground of awareness/clear light/Dao (etc etc). 

 

I agree and the important point is what does it mean to realize these things.

Is the realization with us and integrated to each moment of our lives or do we get distracted and bounce back and forth?

[doc benway]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

Ok, I get it.  But, as I stated in the text above, you are all of it.  No need to separate or try to deny part of it.  Merge it all in.  

 

Not in the tradition I follow.

There is no merging, also no separating or denying, only letting go of distraction and obstruction and resting into it.

[Jeff]

Just now, steve said:

 

Not in the tradition I follow.

There is no merging, also no separating or denying, only letting go of distraction and obstruction and resting into it.

 

Same with mine regarding the letting go of distractions and obstructions (and resting).  So then do you also agree that the goal is to break down the obstructions that keep normal daily life from being the same as meditation?  Is that not like I said earlier simply an obscured perspective/view?  If so, I guess I don't understand how what you are saying is not the same as what I said.

[C T]

10 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Same with mine regarding the letting go of distractions and obstructions (and resting).  So then do you also agree that the goal is to break down the obstructions that keep normal daily life from being the same as meditation?  Is that not like I said earlier simply an obscured perspective/view?  If so, I guess I don't understand how what you are saying is not the same as what I said.

 

Not speaking for Steve, but in Dzogchen no effort is dispensed to break down anything, least of all perceived obstacles and veils. Why? because the mindfulness is kept relaxed and pervasive, simply acknowledging reactionary tendencies, without following after them, as senses make contact with perceptions. The subsequent content's quality,  and other determinations that follow are not analysed to any degree to weigh out what are deemed hindrances or otherwise - this is not part of the process of the "resting" that is synonymous with Dzogchen practice. There is simply the continued application of recognising mind essence, not whats reflected from it. Repeated familiarization with the non-state of easeful, effortless non-distraction is the practice. Prior to this is to gain confidence of what this non-state is. This is where guru yoga is most crucial. Practising it with devotion leads to stability of original wakefulness, that which is naturally free of any impediments and clots. Strange as it may sound, an indicator of the onset of original wakefulness is the diminishing need to blink, believe it or not lol.... So if you want to weed out the realizers from the pretenders, just observe their blinking frequencies haha!! 

[doc benway]

25 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Same with mine regarding the letting go of distractions and obstructions (and resting).  So then do you also agree that the goal is to break down the obstructions that keep normal daily life from being the same as meditation?  

Yes, i would agree that integration is important. The view is integrated into all activity.

 

25 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Is that not like I said earlier simply an obscured perspective/view?  If so, I guess I don't understand how what you are saying is not the same as what I said.

What you said seems to be denying the truth of what most of us experience in most moments of our lives, namely misidentification with a self, with a train of thought, with the thinker, the watcher, a memory, a hope, whatever we happen to latch onto in any given moment... which is ignorance. I don’t dispute the absolute truth that all is perfect and we all have Buddha nature at our core.

 

I am also acknowledging the very real distraction I experience daily in my life. It is equally real and valid. I am not enlightened. I can’t speak for you or anyone else but I haven’t encountered many folks that appear to be living in a state of continuous samadhi. 

 

If we don’t acknowledge and work with the truth of what we experience in each moment, we are kidding ourselves and not really growing.  That is the stagnation illumairen mentioned earlier.

 

If you do not experience any of distraction in your life... E Ma Ho!

🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

 

I’m nowhere close to that point.

 

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Not speaking for Steve, but in Dzogchen no effort is dispensed to break down anything, least of all perceived obstacles and veils. Why? because the mindfulness is kept relaxed and pervasive, simply acknowledging reactionary tendencies, without following after them, as senses make contact with perceptions. The subsequent content's quality,  and other determinations that follow are not analysed to any degree to weigh out what are deemed hindrances or otherwise - this is not part of the process of the "resting" that is synonymous with Dzogchen practice. There is simply the continued application of recognising mind essence, not whats reflected from it. Repeated familiarization with the non-state of easeful, effortless non-distraction is the practice. Prior to this is to gain confidence of what this non-state is. This is where guru yoga is most crucial. Practising it with devotion leads to stability of original wakefulness, that which is naturally free of any impediments and clots. Strange as it may sound, an indicator of the onset of original wakefulness is the diminishing need to blink, believe it or not lol.... So if you want to weed out the realizers from the pretenders, just observe their blinking frequencies haha!! 

 

So that increasing stability could not also be described as the letting go of obstructions that block the stability?  Not really the same thing?

 

Also, why would a diminishing need to blink a sign of original wakefulness?  Or what would be the textual/sutra reason for it?

[doc benway]

6 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Not speaking for Steve, but in Dzogchen no effort is dispensed to break down anything, least of all perceived obstacles and veils. Why? because the mindfulness is kept relaxed and pervasive, simply acknowledging reactionary tendencies, without following after them, as senses make contact with perceptions. The subsequent content's quality,  and other determinations that follow are not analysed to any degree to weigh out what are deemed hindrances or otherwise - this is not part of the process of the "resting" that is synonymous with Dzogchen practice. There is simply the continued application of recognising mind essence, not whats reflected from it. Repeated familiarization with the non-state of easeful, effortless non-distraction is the practice. Prior to this is to gain confidence of what this non-state is. This is where guru yoga is most crucial. Practising it with devotion leads to stability of original wakefulness, that which is naturally free of any impediments and clots. Strange as it may sound, an indicator of the onset of original wakefulness is the diminishing need to blink, believe it or not lol.... So if you want to weed out the realizers from the pretenders, just observe their blinking frequencies haha!! 

 

So true about the blinking!

Similarly, total opening to physical pain can be a very direct door to the Natural State. It was quite surprising the first time I experienced it.

 

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, steve said:

Yes, i would agree that integration is important. The view is integrated into all activity.

 

What you said seems to be denying the truth of what most of us experience in most moments of our lives, namely misidentification with a self, with a train of thought, with the thinker, the watcher, a memory, a hope, whatever we happen to latch onto in any given moment... which is ignorance. I don’t dispute the absolute truth that all is perfect and we all have Buddha nature at our core.

 

I am also acknowledging the very real distraction I experience daily in my life. It is equally real and valid. I am not enlightened. I can’t speak for you or anyone else but I haven’t encountered many folks that appear to be living in a state of continuous samadhi. 

 

If we don’t acknowledge and work with the truth of what we experience in each moment, we are kidding ourselves and not really growing.  That is the stagnation illumairen mentioned earlier.

 

If you do not experience any of distraction in your life... E Ma Ho!

🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

 

I’m nowhere close to that point.

 

 

I totally agree that we should all work with truth of every individual moment.  I was just stating a fact that you now seem to agree with. People having obscured states of mind is the perceived reality for pretty much everyone.  But, pretending that it is not simply a perceived/obscured state of mind seems to be counter productive.  The stagnation can come from obscured thinking you are "done", but not from recognizing the truth (and talking about it) of every moment.

 

Suffering itself is a state of mind. 

[doc benway]

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

So that increasing stability could not also be described as the letting go of obstructions that block the stability?  Not really the same thing?

 

Also, why would a diminishing need to blink a sign of original wakefulness?  Or what would be the textual/sutra reason for it?

 

It is an indication that we are no longer identifying as strongly with the physical body.

[doc benway]

11 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I totally agree that we should all work with truth of every individual moment.  I was just stating a fact that you now seem to agree with. People having obscured states of mind is the perceived reality for pretty much everyone.  But, pretending that it is not simply a perceived/obscured state of mind seems to be counter productive.  

Acknowledging and working with the reality of our ignorance is necessary, otherwise this becomes nothing more than a mind game. Folks that glibly equate everyday life with mediation come across this way to me. My everyday life is not a continuous state of samadhi. Your earlier comments suggest that to be the case.

 

11 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The stagnation can come from obscured thinking you are "done", but not from recognizing the truth (and talking about it) of every moment.

Stagnation most certainly can come from recognizing and talking about the truth. The crucial point is what recognition means to our daily activity and relationships.

 

11 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Suffering itself is a state of mind. 

Is there a state of mind that is free from suffering?

 

[C T]

18 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

So that increasing stability could not also be described as the letting go of obstructions that block the stability?  Not really the same thing?

 

Also, why would a diminishing need to blink a sign of original wakefulness?  Or what would be the textual/sutra reason for it?

 

The gradual and pervasive onset of the intermittent gaps between thoughts is one of the factors. The other is the purification of the subtle body resulting from sky gazing, prostrations and other yogic practices. Thirdly, it occurs as a result of the lessening of fluctuations of past and future thoughts. Scientific studies show that the fluttering of the eyelids is the body's natural mechanistic reflex to cause a break in mental activity so that one can tune back in to the present. 

 

Some meditation masters I've enquired from claim its a sign of stable wakefulness. 

 

 

 

One of the studies conducted claim that blinking is not random but actually predictable. The researchers observed how people watching a movie were blinking simultaneously during certain scenes. 

[C T]

53 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

So that increasing stability could not also be described as the letting go of obstructions that block the stability?  Not really the same thing?

 

 

The increasing stability specifically refers to the process of getting used to original wakefulness (or to use the much cliched term, "rigpa") - only that remains the focus. The illusion or cataract that makes one believe there are 2 states: one thats filled with obstacles, and the other filled with bliss, is a lie. We (as practitioners) do not exert effort to identify the veils. The effort (of practice), I repeat, is simply aimed at stabilising the continual recognition of non-dual mind essence. Essentially, with the expansion of stable recognition, the veils will effortlessly fall away as a consequence. Its not even necessary to let go of any perceived blockages, no matter how subtle that letting go may be - it still necessitates effort of identification. Not implying that the method is wrong, just that the time it takes for realization to occur may have a significant bearing on how much effort is exerted, and how much frustrations may arise as a result of those exertions. This could be a crucial difference between your work and the authentic Dzogchen path. 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, steve said:

 

An equally big hurdle, arguably bigger because it is more insidious, is the belief that "I am enlightened."

That is simply another conceptual formation of mind.

Thats why it is dependent on the individual’s level of clarity. I know you know  

Quote

You don't need to dance around the emptiness of "I" with me.

I'm not too much of a stickler for nomenclature.

 

It wasn’t meant for you. It was meant to avoid straw-man arguments that often ensue as a result of using certain “trigger” words. 

Quote

 

I agree fully.

The question is what is the "I" identifying with in each and every given moment of our lives.

It is important for us to be brutally (and lovingly) honest with ourselves about this point.

 

That part is pretty clear - it is a process of the mind, called “ahamkara” in the Vedantic system, which does the identifying. 

Quote

 

I agree and the important point is what does it mean to realize these things.

Is the realization with us and integrated to each moment of our lives or do we get distracted and bounce back and forth?

Depends on the level of clarity. If the realization hasn’t matured, bouncing happens. But therein lies the way out too. That which knows there is the bouncing, is what is always there. That’s why we meditate and practice, to become effortless in abiding as that. 

 

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, steve said:

Acknowledging and working with the reality of our ignorance is necessary, otherwise this becomes nothing more than a mind game. Folks that glibly equate everyday life with mediation come across this way to me. My everyday life is not a continuous state of samadhi. Your earlier comments suggest that to be the case.

 

Stagnation most certainly can come from recognizing and talking about the truth. The crucial point is what recognition means to our daily activity and relationships.

 

Is there a state of mind that is free from suffering?

 

 

Depends on your definition of "state".  But when all the states become the same, there is such a possibility.  

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, C T said:

 

The gradual and pervasive onset of the intermittent gaps between thoughts is one of the factors. The other is the purification of the subtle body resulting from sky gazing, prostrations and other yogic practices. Thirdly, it occurs as a result of the lessening of fluctuations of past and future thoughts. Scientific studies show that the fluttering of the eyelids is the body's natural mechanistic reflex to cause a break in mental activity so that one can tune back in to the present. 

 

Some meditation masters I've enquired from claim its a sign of stable wakefulness. 

 

One of the studies conducted claim that blinking is not random but actually predictable. The researchers observed how people watching a movie were blinking simultaneously during certain scenes. 

 

Thanks for sharing.  If you have any good examples of such people who demonstrate that I would be interested. No question that there is huge variability in eye blinking, but some of the most notable examples tend to be people in the military. Some generals are famous for it.

[Jeff]

41 minutes ago, C T said:

 

The increasing stability specifically refers to the process of getting used to original wakefulness (or to use the much cliched term, "rigpa") - only that remains the focus. The illusion or cataract that makes one believe there are 2 states: one thats filled with obstacles, and the other filled with bliss, is a lie. We (as practitioners) do not exert effort to identify the veils. The effort (of practice), I repeat, is simply aimed at stabilising the continual recognition of non-dual mind essence. Essentially, with the expansion of stable recognition, the veils will effortlessly fall away as a consequence. Its not even necessary to let go of any perceived blockages, no matter how subtle that letting go may be - it still necessitates effort of identification. Not implying that the method is wrong, just that the time it takes for realization to occur may have a significant bearing on how much effort is exerted, and how much frustrations may arise as a result of those exertions. This could be a crucial difference between your work and the authentic Dzogchen path. 

 

Thank you.  This is exactly the same thing that I have been saying. All such "separate" states of  mind are a perceptional illusion. But, Steve and Ilum are worried that such an approach is misleading and can lead to stagnation.  

 

Have a good weekend.

[s1va]

5 hours ago, C T said:

eEverything may be relative, but real is kinda subjective, don't you agree, sir? 

 

How do we view the subjective?  Reality is not entirely a phantom or non-existent illusion.  Some traditions hold this view.  I cannot agree with this and I don't think Buddhists hold this view of non-existent illusive universe as held by early traditions in India.  To expand on what I stated earlier, following teachings from KS are my experience and belief on what is real and unreal.   The key thing is the example given below comparing the universe to a non-existent dream or mirage. Per this view universe and all the objects in it do not 'really' exist.  This is a different type of illusion (maya) than the one that is held in traditions like KS.  KS and most tantric traditions I am familiar with reject such type of non existent illusion which rejects the reality of existence at the practical level.

 

Why do they reject and what is held 'real' is explained below.  It is entirely consistent with my views.

Quote

In addition, the unreal essence is not capable of creating such a grandiose presentation. If she is really capable of creating, then she is without a doubt a real entity, not an apparent and indescribable one (ibid., 80).

At the very beginning of his enormous work, he also criticizes one more of the theories of the universe, namely the concept of illusion (vivarta-vada). This theory has two aspects. First, it refers to the phenomenon of a non-existent phenomenon, such as, for example, a dream or a mirage.

According to this view, the universe does not exist, but only seems to be an existing reality. Vivarta can also refer to some phenomenon, which in fact is not what it seems, as, for example, a rope can be mistaken for a snake, or a shell for silver. In accordance with this aspect of the vivartas, Brahman exists, but falsely appears as God, a limited soul and inanimate matter.

According to Abhinavagupta:

It is said that the vivarta is a manifestation of a non-existent entity. How can it be unreal, when it is manifested? No one paid proper attention to this discrepancy.
(ibid., 18).

Abhinavagupta observes that the essence that clearly manifests and creates the universe must be something real and significant, and should be described accordingly. In his commentary on Paratrishika, Abhinavagupta insists that his view of the creative nature of absolute reality should not be confused with the views of the Samkhya or Vedanta, since this is an exclusively Shivaite view (Paratrishikavirana V.181).

 

 

 

5 hours ago, C T said:

Your last sentence seems to suggest agreement.... although its not clear how the relationship 

between individual realities and merging is formed. Care to elaborate a bit?

 

Though I would agree the reality is subjective, I cannot agree that it is a non-existent illusion as explained above.  At practical levels and layers, the manifest universe and it's objects exist and are real.  In my view, we all share the same mind space or the filed or perhaps we can call it as kaya.  A person who has realized oneness understands that he/she is not separate and expand to realize or become everything -- to be one with the universe.  But at practical levels, the separation always exists as I explained earlier with the example of Gautama Buddha.  Gautama Buddha after attaining Buddhahood still interacted with others as a separate person while in his body.  This is the only way to act at practical layer.  Buddha may have realized that he is everything, but he cannot eat for others through his mouth or function with his hands/legs for others.  Also he/she cannot deny the reality of their existence and call it a phantom dream, the Buddha exists like everyone else.  I stated the eating/hunger example just to illustrate the reality of separation at the practical layers.  Though a person realizes ultimately everything is one, he/she still differentiates at the practical layer.  In my view, this continues after a person leaves the physical body also.  They continue as light beings, like the deities. 

 

People pray to various deities and interact with different beings.  Such as past Buddhas and other angels, etc.  A loose boundary for those beings (as separate beings) also continue to exist at a practical level and that is why we still call the light being as Gautama Buddha.  Temples are built to pray/connect to the Gautama Buddha and other deities.  Tantric practices to  connect, overlap and merge with such beings exist.  Those that pray, connect or merge to one light level being get the results from that being, not from another being or deity.  This shows that separation exists at practical levels in this layer also.  The prayer and connect happens at the level of duality and of the local mind and are inferior to the merging.  Merging is a non-dual concept and explained by some others very well on the first 2 or 3 pages of this thread/topic and discussed further for several more pages.  Those that have explained the merge have done it way better than I could.  I don't want to go over on the merge part again.  In my view this is somewhat similar to the visualization as a Buddha or deity done by tantric practitioners.  It is not simply visualization when initiated by a teacher and a student has the empowerment to actually connect to that light being or merge.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by s1va

[C T]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Thanks for sharing.  If you have any good examples of such people who demonstrate that I would be interested. No question that there is huge variability in eye blinking, but some of the most notable examples tend to be people in the military. Some generals are famous for it.

 

Watch from the 6min mark... you'll get an idea of the blink-free "resting" state. 

Over the years, I've also met and sat with such yogis, who can remain for hours absorbed in non-referential awareness. 

 

 

[ilumairen]

 

Quote

But, Steve and Ilum are worried that such an approach is misleading and can lead to stagnation.  

 

Once again, you've misrepresented what I've shared, as I was quite clear it could be misleading - with certain understandings and applications leading to the possibility of stagnation.

 

Recognizing the possibility of something becoming misleading is different than saying something is (invariably and always) misleading. 

 

Please do try to be a bit more accurate in your portrayal of my views and understanding, or better yet simply skip the portrayals of my views and understanding as you consistently seem to mess them up in order to diminish and gently denigrate my understanding to support your own. Thanks.

Edited August 3, 2019 by ilumairen

[ilumairen]

 

3 hours ago, steve said:

If we don’t acknowledge and work with the truth of what we experience in each moment, we are kidding ourselves and not really growing.  That is the stagnation illumairen mentioned earlier.

 

Thank you. 

_/\_

 

[ilumairen]

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Ok, now I understand.  You are talking about the "goal of buddhism".  Yes, I totally agree that I have not been talking about buddhism.  This topic is about merging and guru yoga, so if you are only talking about a buddhist framework, then it would probably not work that way.  But, if you read my earlier response to Steve's comment, I am talking about other traditions where it does fit and make sense.

 

Is not the goal of buddhism to not eliminate the difference between states of meditation and normal daily living?  Make them all the same.  Or after you realize your goal, are there still all of the separated states of mind where you go into and out of meditation?

 

Sometimes I rest, and sometimes I engage in stories. 

 

For me, it is of importance to recognize when I've slipped into the stories.. ymmv

[C T]

16 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

How do we view the subjective?  Reality is not entirely a phantom or non-existent illusion.  Some traditions hold this view.  I cannot agree with this and I don't think Buddhists hold this view of non-existent illusive universe as held by early traditions in India.  To expand on what I stated earlier, following teachings from KS are my experience and belief on what is real and unreal.   The key thing is the example given below comparing the universe to a non-existent dream or mirage. Per this view universe and all the objects in it do not 'really' exist.  This is a different type of illusion (maya) than the one that is held in traditions like KS.  KS and most tantric traditions I am familiar with reject such type of non existent illusion which rejects the reality of existence at the practical level.

 

Why do they reject and what is held 'real' is explained below.  It is entirely consistent with my views.

 

 

 

 

Though I would agree the reality is subjective, I cannot agree that it is a non-existent illusion as explained above.  At practical levels and layers, the manifest universe and it's objects exist and are real.  In my view, we all share the same mind space or the filed or perhaps we can call it as kaya.  A person who has realized oneness understands that he/she is not separate and expand to realize or become everything -- to be one with the universe.  But at practical levels, the separation always exists as I explained earlier with the example of Gautama Buddha.  Gautama Buddha after attaining Buddhahood still interacted with others as a separate person while in his body.  This is the only way to act at practical layer.  Buddha may have realized that he is everything, but he cannot eat for others through his mouth or function with his hands/legs for others.  Also he/she cannot deny the reality of their existence and call it a phantom dream, the Buddha exists like everyone else.  I stated the eating/hunger example just to illustrate the reality of separation at the practical layers.  Though a person realizes ultimately everything is one, he/she still differentiates at the practical layer.  In my view, this continues after a person leaves the physical body also.  They continue as light beings, like the deities. 

 

People pray to various deities and interact with different beings.  Such as past Buddhas and other angels, etc.  A loose boundary for those beings (as separate beings) also continue to exist at a practical level and that is why we still call the light being as Gautama Buddha.  Temples are built to pray/connect to the Gautama Buddha and other deities.  Tantric practices to  connect, overlap and merge with such beings exist.  Those that pray, connect or merge to one light level being get the results from that being, not from another being or deity.  This shows that separation exists at practical levels in this layer also.  The prayer and connect happens at the level of duality and of the local mind and are inferior to the merging.  Merging is a non-dual concept and explained by some others very well on the first 2 or 3 pages of this thread/topic and discussed further for several more pages.  Those that have explained the merge have done it way better than I could.  I don't want to go over on the merge part again.  In my view this is somewhat similar to the visualization as a Buddha or deity done by tantric practitioners.  It is not simply visualization when initiated by a teacher and a student has the empowerment to actually connect to that light being or merge.

 

 

 

Oh nice, you're back

and thank you for sharing the above, helping to clarify your understanding. 

You're right - Buddhists do not hold the view of a non-existent, illusive universe. That would be silly. 

 

Im going to have to ponder a bit on some of the points you brought up, and if there's anything I do not 

understand, I hope its okay to bounce some questions off and see if clarity can be reached.