Tantra...

[C T]

In his introduction to Dr Nida Chenagtsang's book Karmamudra: The Yoga of Bliss, Ben Joffe wrote, "As a Highest Yoga Tantra practice, Karmamudra is linked with the so-called ‘Perfection’ or ‘Completion Stage’ (Dzogrim) in Tibetan Buddhism. This stage of practice involves working with the energies and architecture of the subtle body and with highly refined states of awareness in very advanced ways. It is thus regarded as one of the highest echelons of esoteric Buddhism and has traditionally been off-limits for all but the most well-trained and elite practitioners. As Dr Nida mentions in his foreword, over the centuries secrecy has helped to ensure that extremely powerful but easily misunderstood and misapplied Tantric Buddhist practices have been practiced and preserved safely and correctly, and have maintained their integrity."

 

This would explain the limits of my knowledge on this subject since im still miles off from being a well-trained practitioner of authentic yoga tantra. As a result, I feel inadequate to even consider opening my options to other forms of esoterica that places emphasis on subjects that Im not yet confident about even in my own tradition, one which I've been trying to keep pace with for a number of years now. I realize there are some who strongly favour mixing inner knowledge from Daoism, Hindu Tantra, Patanjali's Eight Limbed Yoga, Kabbala, Sufism, Jainism, and a whole plethora of other secretive practices made accessible in this modern era, and feel the urge and have the gumption to match their appetite for such pan-tradition esoterica - this sounds quite fascinating, even adventurous, but I'd rather refrain from such urges. Maybe Im just too much of an old-school traditionalist, or over cautious, or both. Anyways, I digress. 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by C T

[Jonesboy]

14 hours ago, C T said:

 

Is that a vital part of your practice, being able to "see" energy? 

 

I believe the mind has potential to access rituals that will yield siddhis if that is what one desires, 

but its not something that Im particularly concerned about. Supposedly, within the 8 classifications of siddhis (common to Buddhist esoterica, which is somewhat different to KS esoterica) I'd imagine that exposure to learning how to map out or "scan" a person's energetic field will be a basic but essential skill to develop. Its just a speculation though.  

 

Seeing energy is not really important in our practice and we don't try to see someones energy field. To me that would be more astral and local mind stuff.

 

More, I was interested in the descriptions of beings, being energy or mind only.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Jonesboy

[Jeff]

14 hours ago, C T said:

 

Is that a vital part of your practice, being able to "see" energy? 

 

I believe the mind has potential to access rituals that will yield siddhis if that is what one desires, 

but its not something that Im particularly concerned about. Supposedly, within the 8 classifications of siddhis (common to Buddhist esoterica, which is somewhat different to KS esoterica) I'd imagine that exposure to learning how to map out or "scan" a person's energetic field will be a basic but essential skill to develop. Its just a speculation though.  

 

My personal view is that “seeing” energy can be fraught with issues as seeing is a reflection in one’s own mind. And such a reflection is subject to the person doing the seeing own issues (and fears) that can impact what they are seeing.  Truly clear seeing is very rare.

 

That being said, I think that for anyone who wants to teach, some siddhis capability around knowing about others energy situation is critical. Too often people take a “one size fits all” view, and they may teach or use techniques that are not appropriate or not useful. It is similar to trying to set a broken bone without first having an X-ray. It may just be a sprain or instead a deep compound fracture that needs to be dealt with.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

My personal view is that “seeing” energy can be fraught with issues as seeing is a reflection in one’s own mind. And such a reflection is subject to the person doing the seeing own issues (and fears) that can impact what they are seeing.  Truly clear seeing is very rare.

 

That being said, I think that for anyone who wants to teach, some siddhis capability around knowing about others energy situation is critical. Too often people take a “one size fits all” view, and they may teach or use techniques that are not appropriate or not useful. It is similar to trying to set a broken bone without first having an X-ray. It may just be a sprain or instead a deep compound fracture that needs to be dealt with.

 

One of the first things that happened to me when I started to meditate was picking up peoples 'energy' - including thoughts, intentions and feelings.  Not that I actually saw, or see anything particularly - but there is an awareness there - like a field awareness.  If I can do this then I am sure the more advanced people/masters/teachers can do it easily.  If this is seeing then it is - but the more 'astral' type seeing with auras and wotnot I'm not sure that is always helpful or necessary. (?)

 

Basic shamatha - (shine) can produce siddhis.

 

 

[Fa Xin]

10 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

One of the first things that happened to me when I started to meditate was picking up peoples 'energy' - including thoughts, intentions and feelings.  Not that I actually saw, or see anything particularly - but there is an awareness there - like a field awareness.  If I can do this then I am sure the more advanced people/masters/teachers can do it easily.  If this is seeing then it is - but the more 'astral' type seeing with auras and wotnot I'm not sure that is always helpful or necessary. (?)

 

Basic shamatha - (shine) can produce siddhis.

 

 

 

This was my thought too. That it’s just part of an increased awareness or clarity, rather than a skill developed - though one can certainly  focus on it. 

 

Hard to have a conversation with someone and not feel their energy. Most people probably just not aware that it’s happening. 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

This was my thought too. That it’s just part of an increased awareness or clarity, rather than a skill developed - though one can certainly  focus on it. 

 

Hard to have a conversation with someone and not feel their energy. Most people probably just not aware that it’s happening. 

 

yes more like being opened up to what is naturally occurring than anything spooky or weird

[ilumairen]

19 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

I found this interesting from the Norbu quote on Dzogchen Teachings.

 

 

Any thoughts on a person being only energy or mind and being able to see them?

 

My thoughts relate back to my experiences with my mother when I was young. For a number of reasons I won't get into here, being able to sense her energy was useful - especially when storm clouds were arising. 

 

She couldn't be reified as "mom" in those moments.. or it got "messy", especially as I was also then reifying myself as daughter, and reification seems to be where "expected roles" play out.

 

[Jonesboy]

Any thoughts that an astral being is an energy being and a mind only being could be a Buddha/Immortal type being?

[Apech]

15 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Any thoughts that an astral being is an energy being and a mind only being could be a Buddha/Immortal type being?

 

Can you explain what distinction you are making between 'astral' and 'mind'.

 

Classically the astral realms are the spirit realms that the soul can pass through on death and so on.  Also astral just means 'of stars' and stars in traditional astrology are some thing like 'thought forms' or subtle influencing energies - the patterns they make - constellations - and the heavenly cycles are the blue print of all existence - what we see working out in time on earth is the interweaving of these pure forms or intelligences.  For instance the Egyptians would call these the 'baw' (souls) of the gods - and say that the structure of the cosmos is composed of these souls.

 

If on the other hand you mean psychically perceived energy beings - ghosts, entities and so on - these would be on a lower level than true astral beings - and part of the time-world rather than the eternal realms.

[ilumairen]

20 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Quote

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by ilumairen
Horrible formatting messed up quotes

[ilumairen]

(Skipping the quotes; the one from Norbu can be found on the previous page for anyone curious.)

 

There are a number of ways to interpret the quote..

 

One would be what we see with the more recently posted question. The "or" of the quote indicating differentiation. 

 

We could also see the "or" as clarification, such as a unified understanding of energy and mind. 

 

I would lean towards the second way of looking at the quote, at which point there is no answer to the differentiation the question itself asserts. 

[Fa Xin]

I always get confused when Buddhist books mention “mind”. what do they mean? My western “mind” gets definition tangled with this word.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Fa Xin

[ilumairen]

@Jonesboy I would like to look deeper into what's been presented. Would you share the title of the book and chapter in which the quote is found in?

 

[Jonesboy]

18 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

@Jonesboy I would like to look deeper into what's been presented. Would you share the title of the book and chapter in which the quote is found in?

 

 

Dzogchen Teachings by Norbu pg 19-20

 

You may also like pages 86-87 with regard to the movement that was discussed earlier and Mahamudra.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Jonesboy

[Jonesboy]

41 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Can you explain what distinction you are making between 'astral' and 'mind'.

 

Classically the astral realms are the spirit realms that the soul can pass through on death and so on.  Also astral just means 'of stars' and stars in traditional astrology are some thing like 'thought forms' or subtle influencing energies - the patterns they make - constellations - and the heavenly cycles are the blue print of all existence - what we see working out in time on earth is the interweaving of these pure forms or intelligences.  For instance the Egyptians would call these the 'baw' (souls) of the gods - and say that the structure of the cosmos is composed of these souls.

 

If on the other hand you mean psychically perceived energy beings - ghosts, entities and so on - these would be on a lower level than true astral beings - and part of the time-world rather than the eternal realms.

 

To me all things are astral. It is very possible to get in a transmission where one is in a world that is as real as this one. You can touch, breath, taste, smell, everything is as real as what is as front of you now.

 

At the absolute we are all Buddha's, but we can all admit we are at different stages of that realization.

 

My thinking and I am happy to be wrong, which is why I am asking is that energy beings are those beings that have not realized Universal Mind. A mind only being is one that has realized Universal Mind.

 

Apech, thank you for sharing your Egyptian knowledge. I love learning about their beliefs and have tried to read all your posts on the subject

[Jonesboy]

45 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

I always get confused when Buddhist books mention “mind”. what do they mean? My western “mind” gets definition tangled with this word.

 

I use this.. 

 

I am sure some others might be able to give you a more detailed explanation.

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Jonesboy

[mrpasserby]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

If on the other hand you mean psychically perceived energy beings - ghosts, entities and so on - these would be on a lower level than true astral beings - and part of the time-world rather than the eternal realms.

Great explanation! 

[forestofclarity]

2 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

I always get confused when Buddhist books mention “mind”. what do they mean? My western “mind” gets definition tangled with this word.

Mind is usually described as having two aspects: clear and knowing. Clear as in allowing objects to arise—- thoughts, feelings, perceptions. Knowing as in being aware of them. A good explanation is in HHDL’s Gelug-Kagyu tradition of Mahamudra.

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

To me all things are astral. It is very possible to get in a transmission where one is in a world that is as real as this one. You can touch, breath, taste, smell, everything is as real as what is as front of you now.

The difference for a Mahayana Buddhist is that all things are empty—- there is no underlying substratum. Buddhist typologies of beings vary vastly between traditions.

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Can you explain what distinction you are making between 'astral' and 'mind'.

 

Classically the astral realms are the spirit realms that the soul can pass through on death and so on.  Also astral just means 'of stars' and stars in traditional astrology are some thing like 'thought forms' or subtle influencing energies - the patterns they make - constellations - and the heavenly cycles are the blue print of all existence - what we see working out in time on earth is the interweaving of these pure forms or intelligences.  For instance the Egyptians would call these the 'baw' (souls) of the gods - and say that the structure of the cosmos is composed of these souls.

 

If on the other hand you mean psychically perceived energy beings - ghosts, entities and so on - these would be on a lower level than true astral beings - and part of the time-world rather than the eternal realms.

 

I would agree that there is a lot of challenge in defining with the word "mind".  Specifically, The Hindu tradition has a well defined separation, but it has never really resonated with me as it separate it into multiple components that to me is all still part of mind.

 

For me, astral and mind are basically the same.  But maybe we could say that astral is more the universal aspects of mind, combined with a "local" aspect of what many think is mind. So then...

 

Universal (Buddha) Mind = Local Mind + Astral Reams

[Jonesboy]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

The difference for a Mahayana Buddhist is that all things are empty—- there is no underlying substratum. Buddhist typologies of beings vary vastly between traditions.

 

I would agree.

 

The fact one can get caught and be in a place as real as this one shows it is all of the mind, all energy and truly empty.

 

I like the Dzogchen view of the 3 aspects of the base.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Jonesboy

[Apech]

47 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I would agree that there is a lot of challenge in defining with the word "mind".  Specifically, The Hindu tradition has a well defined separation, but it has never really resonated with me as it separate it into multiple components that to me is all still part of mind.

 

For me, astral and mind are basically the same.  But maybe we could say that astral is more the universal aspects of mind, combined with a "local" aspect of what many think is mind. So then...

 

Universal (Buddha) Mind = Local Mind + Astral Reams

 

the words translated as 'mind' are usually citta, manas or vijnana.

 

Citta was originally a Samkhya term which referred to mind-stuff i.e. the subtle aspect of prakriti (substance) in which thoughts, feelings and so on occur.  Later both Buddhism and Yoga (Patanjali) took this term and expanded its application to mean the universal sentient energy which encompasses everything.  Specifically it was thought of as that which takes on form and discharges it.  This leads to statement like all is mind and so on - as in the Buddhism tradition of citta-matra (Mind-only).

 

Manas again in Samkhya philosophy was the kind of accounting faculty of consciousness which sits behind the six sense bases and receives and interprets perceptions.  Although in Samkhya there was a separate aspect of mind called ahamkara which imputes 'self' onto perceptual activity in Buddhism it is the manas which does this.

 

Vijnana is usually translated as consciousness - and literally means jnana = knowing and vi = for, or towards or sometimes 'intense' knowing.  Sometimes it is used generally for consciousness in way we might use it - but more often it is specifically that which creates the subject/object division and creates the situation where the knower knows the known - subject/object conditional mind.

 

Citta is probably the best fit for what we might think of as a field of consciousness which still 'is' without the subject /object division - but you will see all three used in this way.

 

 

[Apech]

Just now, Jonesboy said:

 

I would agree.

 

The fact one can get caught and be in a place as real as this one shows it is all of the mind, all energy and truly empty.

 

I think this is the point - by saying things are empty does not mean they don't exist in the way we might mean.  Since after all I'm empty and so are you - so gods, spirits, ghosts and so on may be empty but at the same time as real as you or me.

 

 

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

The fact one can get caught and be in a place as real as this one shows it is all of the mind, all energy and truly empty.

 

I like the Dzogchen view of the 3 aspects of the base.

 

Most Buddhist schools I am familiar with reject the notion that everything is mind. Everything we experience is mind, but that is not the same as saying everything is mind like Western idealism. And emptiness is not energy. In addition, most Buddhist teachers reject the idea of a universal mind.

 

It is important because all of this has an experiential component.

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

I like the Dzogchen view of the 3 aspects of the base.

 

This is not the Dzogchen view.

Just an artificial division of the base for purposes of discussion.

This is important because the word view has a very precise definition in Dzogchen.