Tantra...

[ilumairen]

On 6/17/2019 at 3:05 PM, Jeff said:

The pleasure orientation is very important, very powerful, and very basic. If you are not pleasure-oriented, you can’t understand tantra. You have to be pleasure-oriented, because otherwise you are pain- and misery-oriented. But this is not a psychological trick of convincing yourself through positive thinking. It is an obvious, reasonable, and real thing. When you treat yourself well, you feel good. When you feel good, you dress yourself in good clothes and adorn yourself with beautiful ornaments. It is a very natural and basic way of relating to oneself.
 

The main qualities of tantra that come out here are basic trust and basic elegance. Elegance here means appreciating things as they are. Things as you are and things as they are. There is a sense of delight and of fearlessness. You are not fearful of dark corners. If there are any dark, mysterious corners, black and confusing, you override them with your glory, your sense of beauty, your sense of cleanness, your feeling of being regal. Because you can override fearfulness in this way, tantra is known as the king of all the yanas. You take an attitude of having perfectly complete and very rich basic sanity.

 

~ Chogyam Trungpa ~ 

 

This thread has been like a waterway, at first a joyful bubbling stream to sit beside and enjoy; we stepped into the stream, and in following it's meandering course came upon some rocks and turbulence, perhaps some saw darkness, mystery and confusion which we can, through the practice of tantra observe, experience, and embue with our sense of beauty. 

 

A "reboot" and refocus on the topic.. warm regards fellow travellers.

[Pilgrim]

50 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

What does everyone think Tantra means?

 

Energy practice? Or is it specific to a tradition?

 

i feel like there’s a lot of stuff that’s called Tantra. I’m guilty of it too. 

 

To me the word represents some kind of energetic connection, whether that’s with someone or a deity. 

 

I also think it means using the aspects of life that aren’t generally thought of as productive to benefitting us. 

Great question.

 

For me it is what I have experienced and described. 

 

To me Tantra grew out of Kriya in its own. 

 

I also view Guru Yoga as not Tantra but something different. Maybe this is wrong?

 

To me Guru Yoga is a connection to a more advanced being and your software gets updated and improved by doing so.

 

As far as my unscholarly understanding of Tantra goes I stop at the consort practice which comes spontaneously and Is not visualized or done with another person.

 

This I believe is the culmination of Tantra and the rest is where it blends with Buddhism and Bon.

 

I may be wrong but Buddhism and Bon go way beyond Tantra.

 

Maybe some one can help me put the whole thing together in a linear fashion I favor?

 

For example where the pieces fit in?

[Jeff]

3 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

Lol arrogant yeah well.... we all do that from time to time😉

 

As far as wine in old bottles hard to avoid disagreements when using other systems or traditions in comparison with original experiential knowing.

 

Very hard to come across as humble when one is trying to make a point when resistance to the point comes up due to the flavor of the original contents of the bottle. You are trying to serve water out of Rum Barrels.

 

Best methinks to start with fresh barrels IE: Framework And containment for ones realizations that can be shared.

 

I know you prefer the direct experiential approach sharing presence and such but there is a problem with this.

 

When the field is present for a congress of souls the minds of said souls, the emotions the stored samskaras blend.

 

For example I am still working out my issues over a long time marriage which I ended due to betrayal.

 

Of course as time goes on it is getting better.

 

my point is that entering into a congress of souls or sharing presence also allows these issues to wash over into others even as there’s so to me.

 

People can be deeply effected by this and not know why. It can manifest in conjunction with their own existing issues.

 

This is why I say just because people can does not mean they should. Just like with puberty human beings become capable of making children, does not mean they should.

 

It is better to wait for maturity. I think allot of people arrive at spiritual puberty and can before they should.:)

 

Therefore in my opinion when having a congress of souls it should be with known practitioners and more mature ones not just the capable.

 

I agree that everyone should make their own choice on such things.  But, in this thread we are talking about the difference in potential or how tantra plays out.  

 

3 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

 

I guess it can be argued if not through pain how does one grow an mature? 

 

The only answer I have to this is it can be done systematically but it should likely be between two souls at first one who is more mature and well versed and can disconnect others from a session and create a safe bubble of interaction.

 

Now that is allot of work.

 

You Jeff want to assist others. I know this is the case but in order to do so it is going to take letting go of comparisons and explaining from a position of fresh water barrels.

 

Those who can will learn, those who are not attracted well okay so what anyhow there are many time worn paths they can tread.

 

New does not mean invalid and old does  not mean the best way.

 

Those who are objective, those who can find value will. Those who can not where never yours to guide or assist anyway

 

Again, letting go of what?  Are you now saying that we should not discuss difference between traditions? How and in the different ways that they work?

[Pilgrim]

Letting go does not mean we can not discuss other traditions, no not at all.

 

The wine bottle was brought up, filling old wine bottles.

 

I am suggesting new wine bottles be used  so the flavor of the old wine not contaminate fresh water.

 

Wine bottle meaning a fresh framework which is yours. 

 

I view you as a teacher always have. So if we are using words on a website I want yours from your realizations which are many.

 

I am not a scholarly person so caparisons between traditions that do not match my experiences fail to really get my full attention.

 

I do not care what has been written in the past, it does not matter.

[mrpasserby]

On 6/23/2019 at 11:19 AM, Fa Xin said:

What does everyone think Tantra means?

 

Energy practice? Or is it specific to a tradition?

 

i feel like there’s a lot of stuff that’s called Tantra. I’m guilty of it too. 

 

To me the word represents some kind of energetic connection, whether that’s with someone or a deity. 

 

I also think it means using the aspects of life that aren’t generally thought of as productive to benefitting us. 

Being celibate I use a type of Tantra slimier to the 3rd type that Pilgrim showed us in a earlier post. No physical contact, Tantra can be achieved using energies generated through the lower Dantian.

It was a funny  joke on me: I tried a experiment with the #3 Tummo, part of Pilgrims post, and then 30 minuets later, I had to hide from the various physical consorts that arrived at my front door.

 

On 6/19/2019 at 7:29 AM, Pilgrim said:

There has also been mentioned Sex in this thread in conjunction with Tantra.

 

Did you know there are 3 levels of consort practice?

 

1st most crude less advanced practitioner level is between a male and a female.

 

2nd level is by meditative means where a consort is visualized and actualized.

 

3rd highest level is when the true consort arrives on her own by advancement in the practice of Tummo.

 

This also happens in Kriya at the higher levels. The automatic arrival of the consort.

 

In the automatic way there is no human body pairing, visualization nor sexual thought. The consort arrives when Shiva and Shakti are becoming in union within.

 

When this happens you may rest assured that the notion of mechanical energy with no living emotive quality or living quality is wiped out.

 

Even before the consort arrives through the practice of tummo or similar practices all such intellectual and lesser perceptions are replaced with direct knowing.

 

I know now some people have their minds very made up about how things are and there is no changing that nor am I attempting to.

 

You perceive what you do and that is good.

 

I will not argue such things rather let this post serve to those whose minds are not already closed to the idea of Tantra and the practice of tummo so they may research and decide for themselves.

 

There are active schools and lamas that do teach these things without all the controversy that surrounds others.

 

Ligmincha with TWR is one such place people may learn from.

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by mrpasserby
Clarify content

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Yes it’s tantra and it’s Rigpa because issues and fears are as people said spontaneously released. I would say even more, worked on so over time the issues are fully removed.

 

Because of the depth there is no fears of shared issues like has been mentioned earlier.

 

If you are talking about a “light level dive”, it is different than Rigpa, but both share the “spontaneous perfection” concept in some form.

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

What does everyone think Tantra means?

 

Energy practice? Or is it specific to a tradition?

 

i feel like there’s a lot of stuff that’s called Tantra. I’m guilty of it too. 

 

To me the word represents some kind of energetic connection, whether that’s with someone or a deity. 

 

I also think it means using the aspects of life that aren’t generally thought of as productive to benefitting us. 

 

Agreed.  Tantra is effective the conscious application of energy/light and the associated flows.

[Jeff]

55 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Letting go does not mean we can not discuss other traditions, no not at all.

 

The wine bottle was brought up, filling old wine bottles.

 

I am suggesting new wine bottles be used  so the flavor of the old wine not contaminate fresh water.

 

Wine bottle meaning a fresh framework which is yours. 

 

I view you as a teacher always have. So if we are using words on a website I want yours from your realizations which are many.

 

I am not a scholarly person so caparisons between traditions that do not match my experiences fail to really get my full attention.

 

I do not care what has been written in the past, it does not matter.

 

Thanks. While I agree with you about the scholarly aspects, this thread headed off in this direction partially relative to the concept presented around that one should start with the intellectual theory first and then sort of validate it through experience. As discussed, I thought it made sense to show different potentials with different theories. Advocating more child like exploration and play.

 

What can be accomplished with Tantra can become “defined” by the mind. Like if one does not believe in the existence of a divine being, one cannot be helped by a divine being. And, such tantra becomes a meaningless mental exercise, as surrender to the divine is a key aspect to such practices.

[Jeff]

On 6/17/2019 at 2:05 PM, Jeff said:

CT recently posted the following quote in his ongoing thread.  It makes some subtle and important points that I thought were worth discussing, and rather than distract from his quotes I decided to start a new thread...

 

The pleasure orientation is very important, very powerful, and very basic. If you are not pleasure-oriented, you can’t understand tantra. You have to be pleasure-oriented, because otherwise you are pain- and misery-oriented. But this is not a psychological trick of convincing yourself through positive thinking. It is an obvious, reasonable, and real thing. When you treat yourself well, you feel good. When you feel good, you dress yourself in good clothes and adorn yourself with beautiful ornaments. It is a very natural and basic way of relating to oneself.
 

The main qualities of tantra that come out here are basic trust and basic elegance. Elegance here means appreciating things as they are. Things as you are and things as they are. There is a sense of delight and of fearlessness. You are not fearful of dark corners. If there are any dark, mysterious corners, black and confusing, you override them with your glory, your sense of beauty, your sense of cleanness, your feeling of being regal. Because you can override fearfulness in this way, tantra is known as the king of all the yanas. You take an attitude of having perfectly complete and very rich basic sanity.

 

~ Chogyam Trungpa ~ 

 

 

Since people are interested in a restart to the thread,  I think there is a critical component of the above quote that our previous discussions have not touched upon...  What about... Trust?

 

Do people think that Tantra is even possible without basic Trust?  Trust in a spiritual partner, guru or divine being?  And is the potential (and effective power) of tantra not driven by the level of that trust?  The greater the “intimacy” or trust of letting in, the more powerful?

 

 

[Kar3n]

9 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Since people are interested in a restart to the thread,  I think there is a critical component of the above quote that our previous discussions have not touched upon...  What about... Trust?

 

Do people think that Tantra is even possible without basic Trust?

For me there has to be some form of trust or even what some might call healthy curiosity for even a "taste".

 

9 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Trust in a spiritual partner, guru or divine being?  And is the potential (and effective power) of tantra not driven by the level of that trust?  The greater the “intimacy” or trust of letting in, the more powerful?

In my experience absolutely for all of the above. The greater the trust which allows for greater openness, the more powerful.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Since people are interested in a restart to the thread,  I think there is a critical component of the above quote that our previous discussions have not touched upon...  What about... Trust?

 

Do people think that Tantra is even possible without basic Trust?  Trust in a spiritual partner, guru or divine being?  And is the potential (and effective power) of tantra not driven by the level of that trust?  The greater the “intimacy” or trust of letting in, the more powerful?

 

 

 

 

I prefer the word confidence or certainty.  Trust sounds a bit like blind faith.

[Creation]

2 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

Great question.

 

For me it is what I have experienced and described. 

 

To me Tantra grew out of Kriya in its own. 

 

I also view Guru Yoga as not Tantra but something different. Maybe this is wrong?

 

To me Guru Yoga is a connection to a more advanced being and your software gets updated and improved by doing so.

 

As far as my unscholarly understanding of Tantra goes I stop at the consort practice which comes spontaneously and Is not visualized or done with another person.

 

This I believe is the culmination of Tantra and the rest is where it blends with Buddhism and Bon.

 

I may be wrong but Buddhism and Bon go way beyond Tantra.

 

Maybe some one can help me put the whole thing together in a linear fashion I favor?

 

For example where the pieces fit in?

There are a number of features often found in paths that are considered Tantric.

-Emphasis on initiation

-Emphasis on the integration of the physical and worldly existence with the highest spiritual transcendence (rather than their opposition)

-Lifting of taboos on sex, violence, and intoxication common to exoteric religions/spiritual paths

-Deliberate use of sex, violence, and/or intoxication in spiritual practices

-Practices involving manipulation of subtle body phenomena, and practices using the physical body used for spiritual aims (e.g. khecari mudra, mahabandha/vase breath, yoga asanas)

-Microcosm-macrocosm principle: correspondence between the inner experience of the subtle body and the external universe

Not every path that has identified as Tantric carries all of these features, and non-Tantric paths might have one or more of them.  But typically the more of these are present in a tradition the more likely it is to self-identify as Tantric. 

 

So there is dualistic Shaiva tantra, non-dualistic Shaiva tantra, Vaishnava tantra, Mahayana Buddhist tantra.  They all have their own internal reasons for making the shift to the Tantric mode of practice.  For instance, in Buddhism, many think the later forms of Buddhist tantra were influenced by non-dual Shaiva tantra, but the earliest forms developed for reasons completely internal to Mahayana Buddhism.  In Mahayana, a Buddha doesn't just have an enlightened mind, but an enlightened body (nirmanakaya), and sees samsara and nirvana as non-dual and all phenomena as primordially pure.  So this is already proto-tantric.  But in ordinary Mahayana, the only way to get to that point is innumerable lifetimes of renouncing the world and engaging in deep meditative absorption and good deeds.  Whereas In the earliest fully tantric form of Buddhism (Yoga Tantra, technically), there came the idea that one can receive an initiation into the mandala of a deity that allows one to do this in a single lifetime.  So here we have initiation, integration spiritual transcendence with worldly existence, slight lifting of the taboo on violence (there was a peaceful mandala and a wrathful mandala) and a macrocosm-microcosm principle, but no sexual, subtle body, or physical body practices.  Naturally, there were groups who explored sexuality within this context and that led to the next phase of Buddhist tantra, involving consort practice.

 

As freeform noted, non-Indic tradition that has the most similarity to Tantra is Daoism. 

 

As for the specific question about Guru Yoga being Tantra, since in Tibetan Buddhism initiation is given to make this connection, and the connection gives information on how to integrate the body and mundane existence on the spiritual path resulting in both an enlightened mind and enlightened body, it is definitely Tantra.  Guru Yoga and Deity Yoga are considered the characteristic practices of Tantric Buddhism in Tibet.  Also, Dzogchen is a form of Tantra; it positions itself as the highest form of tantra.  When it claims to be beyond tantra, it specifically means beyond lower forms of tantra.

 

Does that theoretical explanation find congruence with your experience?

Edited June 23, 2019 by Creation

[Jeff]

Nice overview Creation.

 

To me, the simplest definition of Tantra is any energy/light interaction with some being beyond your own local body-mind.

 

In tantra, relative polarities are established (male-female, heaven-earth, yin-yang, transmission-reception), and with these polarities (like a battery needing positive and negative) energy flows.

[Fa Xin]

53 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I prefer the word confidence or certainty.  Trust sounds a bit like blind faith.

 

For me... Sometimes it feels like a leap of faith. I think that’s what it’s all about.

 

There’s not much fear to face when I’m certain about something... and I’ve definitely had times where I said to myself “Oh crap, maybe I’ve gone too far this time...”

 

[Apech]

15 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

For me... Sometimes it feels like a leap of faith. I think that’s what it’s all about.

 

There’s not much fear to face when I’m certain about something... and I’ve definitely had times where I said to myself “Oh crap, maybe I’ve gone too far this time...”

 

 

If you mean egoic fear then being trusting can itself be a trap.  For instance you want to improve yourself by a kind of abandon, thinking this means you have no inhibitions.  Or you want to bargain with the Guru thinking this will gain you something, some kind of spiritual power.  This not generally recommended.  It is better to examine carefully until you build confidence out of experience.  Everything else is a kind of avoidance.  Or that's my view anyway.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Apech

[Fa Xin]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

If you mean egoic fear then being trusting can itself be a trap.  For instance you want to improve yourself by a kind of abandon, thinking this means you have no inhibitions.  Or you want to bargain with the Guru thinking this will gain you something, some kind of spiritual power.  This not generally recommended.  It is better to examine carefully until you build confidence out of experience.  Everything else is a kind of avoidance.  Or that's my view anyway.

 

I meant more that the energy itself gets so intense that your heart pounds a mile a minute and you wonder if they’ll find you the next morning fear... Maybe that is egoic in a way... 

 

I don’t have those experiences much anymore, but when starting out there were a few times I had to stop in fear.  Would I really have died? Probably not, but my mind was telling me that. 

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

I prefer the word confidence or certainty.  Trust sounds a bit like blind faith.

To me Trust is a big notch up from certainty and confidence though both are part of what creates trust.

 

Trust to me is sacred, it has a component of loyalty that goes beyond convenience and beyond fulfilling a desire or preventing  loss. 

 

Trust is totally comprehended and known when it is gone when it is betrayed.

 

Trust goes beyond recognition and familiarity with patterns and the security they will continue because nothing stays the same.

 

Without some degree of faith Trust never gets a foothold, trust requires the self confidence to be naked and Allowing yourself to be afraid to take a chance.

 

Forming trust takes guts, it ain’t for wimps.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Pilgrim

[ilumairen]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Thanks. While I agree with you about the scholarly aspects, this thread headed off in this direction partially relative to the concept presented around that one should start with the intellectual theory first and then sort of validate it through experience.

 

There was no "should" involved, and what was shared was only practical means to assist understanding. 

 

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

As discussed, I thought it made sense to show different potentials with different theories. Advocating more child like exploration and play.

 

There was an understanding of play and personal exploration intended in the sharing. And the individual the sharing was intended for understood this. 

 

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

What can be accomplished with Tantra can become “defined” by the mind. Like if one does not believe in the existence of a divine being, one cannot be helped by a divine being. And, such tantra becomes a meaningless mental exercise, as surrender to the divine is a key aspect to such practices.

 

Tantra can be the "play" as form inseparable from emptiness, and it is also underscored (and I believe generally understood) as being nothing more than playing "pretend" with oneself if one invokes the form without an underlying understanding of emptiness. 

 

Which isn't to say anything about your experience and understanding, but to clarify misconception being set forth regarding my own - with both having an understanding of "meaningless mental exercise".

 

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, Creation said:

There are a number of features often found in paths that are considered Tantric.

-Emphasis on initiation

-Emphasis on the integration of the physical and worldly existence with the highest spiritual transcendence (rather than their opposition)

-Lifting of taboos on sex, violence, and intoxication common to exoteric religions/spiritual paths

-Deliberate use of sex, violence, and/or intoxication in spiritual practices

-Practices involving manipulation of subtle body phenomena, and practices using the physical body used for spiritual aims (e.g. khecari mudra, mahabandha/vase breath, yoga asanas)

-Microcosm-macrocosm principle: correspondence between the inner experience of the subtle body and the external universe

Not every path that has identified as Tantric carries all of these features, and non-Tantric paths might have one or more of them.  But typically the more of these are present in a tradition the more likely it is to self-identify as Tantric. 

 

So there is dualistic Shaiva tantra, non-dualistic Shaiva tantra, Vaishnava tantra, Mahayana Buddhist tantra.  They all have their own internal reasons for making the shift to the Tantric mode of practice.  For instance, in Buddhism, many think the later forms of Buddhist tantra were influenced by non-dual Shaiva tantra, but the earliest forms developed for reasons completely internal to Mahayana Buddhism.  In Mahayana, a Buddha doesn't just have an enlightened mind, but an enlightened body (nirmanakaya), and sees samsara and nirvana as non-dual and all phenomena as primordially pure.  So this is already proto-tantric.  But in ordinary Mahayana, the only way to get to that point is innumerable lifetimes of renouncing the world and engaging in deep meditative absorption and good deeds.  Whereas In the earliest fully tantric form of Buddhism (Yoga Tantra, technically), there came the idea that one can receive an initiation into the mandala of a deity that allows one to do this in a single lifetime.  So here we have initiation, integration spiritual transcendence with worldly existence, slight lifting of the taboo on violence (there was a peaceful mandala and a wrathful mandala) and a macrocosm-microcosm principle, but no sexual, subtle body, or physical body practices.  Naturally, there were groups who explored sexuality within this context and that led to the next phase of Buddhist tantra, involving consort practice.

 

As freeform noted, non-Indic tradition that has the most similarity to Tantra is Daoism. 

 

As for the specific question about Guru Yoga being Tantra, since in Tibetan Buddhism initiation is given to make this connection, and the connection gives information on how to integrate the body and mundane existence on the spiritual path resulting in both an enlightened mind and enlightened body, it is definitely Tantra.  Guru Yoga and Deity Yoga are considered the characteristic practices of Tantric Buddhism in Tibet.  Also, Dzogchen is a form of Tantra; it positions itself as the highest form of tantra.  When it claims to be beyond tantra, it specifically means beyond lower forms of tantra.

 

Does that theoretical explanation find congruence with your experience?

Thank you very much for such a wonderful explanation that was really something else. 🙏🏻👏🏼😁

 

I must backtrack just a bit. I wrote Consort practice is where it stops after coming from Kriya.

 

What I should have said was Tummo came from Kriya and then the etheric consort to show how and then the joining and I think of this as Tantra.

 

The thoughtful explanation you just gave most certainly does help, yes I see many, Many of my own Experiences reflected here.

 

In Kriya we do not worship the Gurus but I must confess I have great love for them and a few in particular.

 

If you do not mind could you lay it out sequentially in a linear fashion.

 

For example I assume initiation is first followed by a basic practice followed by something else when and where do my experiences fit in and what comes next? Finally what is the end Dzogchen Chen? 

 

Thank you this will really help me understand Tantra and it’s place in things much better.

 

We can continue in private if need be to avoid further thread drift.

[C T]

36 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

I meant more that the energy itself gets so intense that your heart pounds a mile a minute and you wonder if they’ll find you the next morning fear... Maybe that is egoic in a way... 

 

I don’t have those experiences much anymore, but when starting out there were a few times I had to stop in fear.  Would I really have died? Probably not, but my mind was telling me that. 

 

Perhaps there were simply too many referential points at that time. These can be really obstructive, at least from the view of authentic buddha-tantra and Dzogchen practice. As Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said, "Referentiality is the process by which we retreat from the direct experience of everyday life." Being present (a term so often used to imply something positive and affirming) can trigger fears too, more so when we are not properly attuned to the possibility and also the means by which to cut through the barriers of habitual emotional patterns which is where fears and other neuroses are rooted. 

[mrpasserby]

4 hours ago, Creation said:

There are a number of features often found in paths that are considered Tantric.

-Emphasis on initiation

-Emphasis on the integration of the physical and worldly existence with the highest spiritual transcendence (rather than their opposition)

-Lifting of taboos on sex, violence, and intoxication common to exoteric religions/spiritual paths

-Deliberate use of sex, violence, and/or intoxication in spiritual practices

-Practices involving manipulation of subtle body phenomena, and practices using the physical body used for spiritual aims (e.g. khecari mudra, mahabandha/vase breath, yoga asanas)

-Microcosm-macrocosm principle: correspondence between the inner experience of the subtle body and the external universe

Not every path that has identified as Tantric carries all of these features, and non-Tantric paths might have one or more of them.  But typically the more of these are present in a tradition the more likely it is to self-identify as Tantric. 

 

So there is dualistic Shaiva tantra, non-dualistic Shaiva tantra, Vaishnava tantra, Mahayana Buddhist tantra.  They all have their own internal reasons for making the shift to the Tantric mode of practice.  For instance, in Buddhism, many think the later forms of Buddhist tantra were influenced by non-dual Shaiva tantra, but the earliest forms developed for reasons completely internal to Mahayana Buddhism.  In Mahayana, a Buddha doesn't just have an enlightened mind, but an enlightened body (nirmanakaya), and sees samsara and nirvana as non-dual and all phenomena as primordially pure.  So this is already proto-tantric.  But in ordinary Mahayana, the only way to get to that point is innumerable lifetimes of renouncing the world and engaging in deep meditative absorption and good deeds.  Whereas In the earliest fully tantric form of Buddhism (Yoga Tantra, technically), there came the idea that one can receive an initiation into the mandala of a deity that allows one to do this in a single lifetime.  So here we have initiation, integration spiritual transcendence with worldly existence, slight lifting of the taboo on violence (there was a peaceful mandala and a wrathful mandala) and a macrocosm-microcosm principle, but no sexual, subtle body, or physical body practices.  Naturally, there were groups who explored sexuality within this context and that led to the next phase of Buddhist tantra, involving consort practice.

 

As freeform noted, non-Indic tradition that has the most similarity to Tantra is Daoism. 

 

As for the specific question about Guru Yoga being Tantra, since in Tibetan Buddhism initiation is given to make this connection, and the connection gives information on how to integrate the body and mundane existence on the spiritual path resulting in both an enlightened mind and enlightened body, it is definitely Tantra.  Guru Yoga and Deity Yoga are considered the characteristic practices of Tantric Buddhism in Tibet.  Also, Dzogchen is a form of Tantra; it positions itself as the highest form of tantra.  When it claims to be beyond tantra, it specifically means beyond lower forms of tantra.

 

Does that theoretical explanation find congruence with your experience?

Thank you for all of this Tantra information. Now I understand why I know what to do, even though I don't ever seam to be able to explain it properly to others. (I have body smarts, but not head smarts) 

The only part that I did not understand was about the Mandela connection to a deity. The deities that I have had experience with where ether in spirit temples or they where in what I call domain bubbles or what I recently found out are called a: sanctum sanctorium.

So my question is can anyone tell me during a Tantric session how do you connect to a deity using a Mandela? 

Interrupted againnn look for some future edits.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by mrpasserby
spelling clarity

[Creation]

1 hour ago, mrpasserby said:

So my question is can anyone tell me during a Tantric session how do you connect to a deity using a Mandela? 

Interrupted againnn look for some future edits.

There are rituals to invoke the blessing of deities (lower tantra) and rituals to become the deity (higher tantra), involving mantra, visualization, ritual items, etc.  The specifics depend on the particular practice, but they typically share a common structure.  Initiation is what allows something mind-based like visualization to actually connect to the deity.

[ilumairen]

36 minutes ago, Creation said:

There are rituals to invoke the blessing of deities (lower tantra) and rituals to become the deity (higher tantra), involving mantra, visualization, ritual items, etc.  The specifics depend on the particular practice, but they typically share a common structure.  Initiation is what allows something mind-based like visualization to actually connect to the deity.

 

In considering this, both the Six Lokas and practice of Sherap Chamma as I was taught utilize both lower and higher tantra - which was recognized, and yet not put in these terms. 

 

Thank you for the clarification. 

[Fa Xin]

2 hours ago, C T said:

 

Perhaps there were simply too many referential points at that time. These can be really obstructive, at least from the view of authentic buddha-tantra and Dzogchen practice. As Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said, "Referentiality is the process by which we retreat from the direct experience of everyday life." Being present (a term so often used to imply something positive and affirming) can trigger fears too, more so when we are not properly attuned to the possibility and also the means by which to cut through the barriers of habitual emotional patterns which is where fears and other neuroses are rooted. 

 

Thank you... referential is not a term I have heard used before, but it makes sense.  

[Jonesboy]

55 minutes ago, Creation said:

There are rituals to invoke the blessing of deities (lower tantra) and rituals to become the deity (higher tantra), involving mantra, visualization, ritual items, etc.  The specifics depend on the particular practice, but they typically share a common structure.  Initiation is what allows something mind-based like visualization to actually connect to the deity.

 

It is my understanding in Buddhism there is no actual connecting to a deity. It is much like Guru yoga where it is more symbolic and is a means of realizing the qualities the deity represents within oneself.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Jonesboy