Kundalini discovery

[Bindi]

20 minutes ago, old3bob said:

"Dzogchen teachings point to the spiritual self, the ultimate self, as primordially pure, literally Great Perfection. By definition nothing needs to be developed. It’s a discovery more than a creation. That’s dzogchen, slightly different than the Vedic view."

 

Hmm, I suggest not being too sure about such a difference...in the sense that development of a matrix for Self does not mean that Self or Brahman needs development or "creation" . 

 

I like this, a matrix can be developed, or even is needed to be developed, to realise Self. In neidan, a True Man (sic) or True Self is realised and nurtured, via an energetic matrix that is carefully constructed. The nature of this True Self may be compatible with the concept of Buddha nature. 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I like this, a matrix can be developed, or even is needed to be developed, to realise Self. In neidan, a True Man (sic) or True Self is realised and nurtured, via an energetic matrix that is carefully constructed. The nature of this True Self may be compatible with the concept of Buddha nature. 

 

the way I'd put it is that the Self has never not realized the Self, yet there is the realization of the manifestation of Self in the "three worlds"  as  both micro and macro matrix's (for or of the Self so to speak) taking shape as directly alluded to me  in a correlation with the T.T.C. per "The One", "The Two", "The Three' and on to the 'Ten thousand"... 

Edited September 6, 2020 by old3bob

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

the way I'd put it is that the Self has never not realized the Self, yet there is the realization of the manifestation of Self in the "three worlds"  as  both micro and macro matrix's (for or of the Self so to speak) taking shape as directly alluded to me  in a correlation with the T.T.C. per "The One", "The Two", "The Three' and on to the 'Ten thousand"... 

 

More similarity to dzogchen here in that the Nature of mind is taught to be primordially self-aware. Connecting to that for the individual is referred to as Rigpa of the path, also referred to as pure and perfect mind.

[liminal_luke]

9 hours ago, steve said:

 When the awareness fills the central channel, one is said to rest in the Nature of Mind or connect with primordially pure self-awareness.

 

Is the central channel identified in Bon essentially the same as the central channel worked with in Taoist practice?  When I was learning internal alchemy with Michael Winn (Healing Dao)  it was all about developing awareness of the central channel.  So I wonder...are these practices going to the same place?

[doc benway]

32 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Is the central channel identified in Bon essentially the same as the central channel worked with in Taoist practice?  When I was learning internal alchemy with Michael Winn (Healing Dao)  it was all about developing awareness of the central channel.  So I wonder...are these practices going to the same place?

 

While the details of the description of the central channel may vary among disciplines, I would say they refer to an experience of openness within the center of the body/mind which we can connect to with awareness.

 

When I think about a question like

...are these practices going to the same place?

I run into a wonderful contradiction. Each tradition has developed its own unique conceptual model and understanding of reality, as well as different praxis.  So in that sense I have this sense that no, they are going in different directions and this should lead to different destinations. And I’ve read and heard of great masters who would so no.

 

On the other hand, the destination is not other than me, it is never very far from where I am at this moment, it is the essence of my very being, so if I were to take two different paths to myself, would I arrive at two different destinations? 

 

Rather than try to pin down an answer I tend to leave the question open ended and see if there is more there to learn. It reminds me of a quotation from John O’Donohue:

 

”We need to have greater patience with our sense of inner contradiction in order to allow its different dimensions to come into conversation within us. There is a secret light and vital energy in contradiction. Where is energy, there is life and growth. Your contemplative solitude will allow your contradictions to emerge with clarity and force. If you remain faithful to this energy, you will gradually come to participate in a harmony that lies deeper than any contradiction. This will give you new courage to engage the depth, danger, and darkness of your life.”

 

[neti neti]

Oh my. It seems a rarity is in full swing here... we seem to actually be dangerously close to discussing the similarity of what apparently differing traditions point to!   How refreshing! 

 

Consider that...

 

"...both are correct in their sphere, for the flower is not the soil, nor the soil the flower." ~Mataji Bhairavi Nagalakshmi

[ralis]

"When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." Robert M. Pirsig

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, steve said:

 

More similarity to dzogchen here in that the Nature of mind is taught to be primordially self-aware. Connecting to that for the individual is referred to as Rigpa of the path, also referred to as pure and perfect mind.

 

sounds right for that form of Buddhism,  but "mind", including a purified mind in the Upanishads is known as a thing so to speak and the nature of that thing or all things is that they are springing forth from the  True Self... and thus are used to manifest through or used as a matrix.  (edit)

Edited September 6, 2020 by old3bob

[ralis]

6 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

sounds right for that form of Buddhism,  but "mind" in the Upanishads is known as a thing so to speak and the nature of that thing (or all things) is not the True Self which manifests through it or uses it as a matrix. 

 

Buddhism is primarily a reaction to Hinduism. E.g. in Tibetan Buddhist iconography there are wrathful deities stomping on Ganesh. 

[doc benway]

12 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

sounds right for that form of Buddhism,  but "mind" in the Upanishads is known as a thing so to speak and the nature of that thing (or all things) is not the True Self which manifests through it or uses it as a matrix. 

 

When dzogchen teachers use a phrase like "pure and perfect mind," it relates to that "True Self" or rather, the aspect of the living practitioner which is closest one can come to an experience of that "True Self."

[doc benway]

21 minutes ago, ralis said:

"When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." Robert M. Pirsig

 

“Nobody believes in God like an atheist: “There is no God, and I am His prophet.”

― Alan W. Watts

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, steve said:

 

When dzogchen teachers use a phrase like "pure and perfect mind," it relates to that "True Self" or rather, the aspect of the living practitioner which is closest one can come to an experience of that "True Self."

 

Even though I don't believe that teachings should be secret or even dispensed by dharma kings there is a point where it is very easy to confuse persons that have not had direct experience with the primordial. Your narrative regarding Dzogchen leaves out the basis for the teachings in which there are two key points. As far as I know, Namkhai Norbu is the only one that elucidated the finer points that most all have ignored or were not paying attention.

[old3bob]

16 minutes ago, steve said:

 

When dzogchen teachers use a phrase like "pure and perfect mind," it relates to that "True Self" or rather, the aspect of the living practitioner which is closest one can come to an experience of that "True Self."

 

hmm, I'd say the True Self alluded to in the Upanisahds "knows the Self by the Self", thus not just of an aspect that comes close.

Edited September 6, 2020 by old3bob

[Apech]

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

 

I like this, a matrix can be developed, or even is needed to be developed, to realise Self. In neidan, a True Man (sic) or True Self is realised and nurtured, via an energetic matrix that is carefully constructed. The nature of this True Self may be compatible with the concept of Buddha nature. 

 

Except in that Buddha-nature is not constructed.  Buddha-nature is the continuum of consciousness which is our nature.  The task is to realise it - or rather it realises itself such that consciousness becomes reflexively aware of itself.  The carefully constructed energetic matrix which you refer to is more like the vessel which takes you there than the thing itself.

 

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Is the central channel identified in Bon essentially the same as the central channel worked with in Taoist practice?  When I was learning internal alchemy with Michael Winn (Healing Dao)  it was all about developing awareness of the central channel.  So I wonder...are these practices going to the same place?

 

 

I think we would find if we had the proper resources to research it that there is a common origin in all the systems which work with channels and so on.  Much of the early versions come through medical healing approaches in both India and China - and are used (in slightly different ways) by yogis of different traditions to realise the fundamental nature of being and to achieve a kind of perfect harmony and this health.

 

 

[dwai]

30 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

 

 

Except in that Buddha-nature is not constructed.  Buddha-nature is the continuum of consciousness which is our nature.  The task is to realise it - or rather it realises itself such that consciousness becomes reflexively aware of itself.  The carefully constructed energetic matrix which you refer to is more like the vessel which takes you there than the thing itself.

The Self is not nor can it ever be constructed. Just the idea of “constructing” the Self is ludicrous because, “who constructs”?  

 

In an ever-changing world, the Self is the never-changing, always present reality. 

Quote

 

I think we would find if we had the proper resources to research it that there is a common origin in all the systems which work with channels and so on.  Much of the early versions come through medical healing approaches in both India and China - and are used (in slightly different ways) by yogis of different traditions to realise the fundamental nature of being and to achieve a kind of perfect harmony and this health.

 

 

Channels, energy, anything that can be experienced or known is not the Self. That which knows is the Self. 
 

So systems which work with prana/Qi/neidan etc can only be preparatory stages, which work on purifying the mind via energy (mind and energy are tightly intertwined). 

Edited September 6, 2020 by dwai

[dwai]

On 8/15/2020 at 5:01 PM, Bindi said:

Most people Seem to think that kundalini is intelligent, I see it as blind, which would explain why there are so many problems with it. If the spirit, or the spiritual mind, is developed first, it can access kundalini properly and guide it with no dramas and to good effect. To me this means working with the Dan Tians first, and clearing the channels, not with the aid of kundalini, but to prepare for kundalini.

Kundalini is neither blind nor just some inert force you can unleash inside a body. It is the creative force of awareness itself.  It feels like a catastrophe because forceful means are used instead of skillful means, before the mind can be purified. 

 

The process of cleansing the channels etc is essentially a way to purify the mind. When the mind is sufficiently clean, Self realization becomes a possibility. 

On 8/15/2020 at 5:01 PM, Bindi said:

Just thinking aloud here, if part of kundalini’s purpose is to destroy the ego connection to the mundane mind, I’d like to have a place to inhabit within my spirit before that connection is destroyed, which is only possible if the spirit has been fully developed, and I am fully identified with it. 
 

 

It seems like such ideas are very impressive, but they are fallacious imho. There is no “my spirit” apart from me. But that me is not the conditioned personality but rather the clear light of Awareness, aka The Self. There is no place

needed to inhabit that in which all things appear  

[doc benway]

15 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

hmm, I'd say the True Self alluded to in the Upanisahds "knows the Self by the Self",

Same thing goes in dzogchen teachings...

 

15 minutes ago, old3bob said:

thus not just of an aspect that comes close.

The tricky part is whether or not a living, individual practitioner is ever able to completely and fully drop all imperfections, impurities, and obscurations such that the living experience is equivalent to the theoretical. There are three aspects of the self-awareness of "True Self" in dzogchen:

Rigpa of the base - closest to the conceptual True Self we seem to be referring to. Generally, in the dzogchen teachings, it's said that the living practitioner does not experience this "base rigpa" but that, at the time of death, when the 5 elements dissolve there is the emergence of perfectly obscured clear light that is aware of itself without any obstruction whatsoever. We can also get very close to this through the experience of clear light in deep sleep, an objective of sleep yoga.

Rigpa of the path - the practitioner's expression/experience of the the self-aware nature in the non-dual experience of meditation

Effulgent rigpa - the pure, self-aware nature of the display of the base. Similar to the empty , yet self-aware, nature of sound, light, and rays.

 

Not claiming these definitions are perfect or comprehensive, I'm a beginner, but hopefully you get the basic idea.

[doc benway]

59 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Even though I don't believe that teachings should be secret or even dispensed by dharma kings there is a point where it is very easy to confuse persons that have not had direct experience with the primordial. Your narrative regarding Dzogchen leaves out the basis for the teachings in which there are two key points. As far as I know, Namkhai Norbu is the only one that elucidated the finer points that most all have ignored or were not paying attention.

I'm quite sure there are other masters who have elucidated finer points.

Can you share about the two key points further?

Or direct me to a resource?

Not sure what key points you are referring to.

Thanks

[ralis]

34 minutes ago, steve said:

I'm quite sure there are other masters who have elucidated finer points.

Can you share about the two key points further?

Or direct me to a resource?

Not sure what key points you are referring to.

Thanks

 

I have mentioned it a few times here and I was either laughed at or told I didn't know anything. Therefor I stopped talking about it!

Edited September 6, 2020 by ralis

[old3bob]

26 minutes ago, steve said:

Same thing goes in dzogchen teachings...

 

The tricky part is whether or not a living, individual practitioner is ever able to completely and fully drop all imperfections, impurities, and obscurations such that the living experience is equivalent to the theoretical. There are three aspects of the self-awareness of "True Self" in dzogchen:

Rigpa of the base - closest to the conceptual True Self we seem to be referring to. Generally, in the dzogchen teachings, it's said that the living practitioner does not experience this "base rigpa" but that, at the time of death, when the 5 elements dissolve there is the emergence of perfectly obscured clear light that is aware of itself without any obstruction whatsoever. We can also get very close to this through the experience of clear light in deep sleep, an objective of sleep yoga.

Rigpa of the path - the practitioner's expression/experience of the the self-aware nature in the non-dual experience of meditation

Effulgent rigpa - the pure, self-aware nature of the display of the base. Similar to the empty , yet self-aware, nature of sound, light, and rays.

 

Not claiming these definitions are perfect or comprehensive, I'm a beginner, but hopefully you get the basic idea.

 

so looking at that rhetorically can the Self ever fully and continuously manifest through an apparently separate  living practitioner...

I'd say and some teachings say it's rare but possible for then a truly undifferentiated reality is attained. 

 

[neti neti]

one of my favs...

 

Quote

"The location of the truth of the Great Perfection is the unfabricated mind of the present moment, this naked radiant awareness itself, not a hair of which has been forced into relaxation.

 

Maintaining this at all times, just through not forgetting it even in the states of eating, sleeping, walking, and sitting, is called meditation. However, until you are free from the obscurations of cognition, it is impossible for this not to be mixed with the experiences of bliss, clarity, and non-conceptualisation.

 

Nevertheless, just by not forgetting the nature of one’s own awareness - the kind that is not a tangled mindfulness that gets more tangled in order to be mindful - at some point the unelaborated ultimate truth, transcending terms and examples, will appear."

~Jigme Lingpa

 

[ralis]

What does cutting/pasting quotes from a teacher actually accomplish? 

[ralis]

It is an improbable task to map out reality with any language. 

[doc benway]

40 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I have mentioned it a few times here and I was either laughed at or told I didn't know anything. Therefor I stopped talking about it!

OK, I can respect that.

Please feel free to PM me if you’re willing.

I assure you I won’t laugh or tell you that you don’t anything.

And if you’d rather not, that’s cool.

 

[doc benway]

43 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

so looking at that rhetorically can the Self ever fully and continuously manifest through an apparently separate  living practitioner...

I'd say and some teachings say it's rare but possible for then a truly undifferentiated reality is attained. 

 

 

The masters I’ve met or had contact with who I would say are the closest to this ideal would be the first to say they are nowhere close. Is it possible? Maybe, maybe not; it makes no difference to me as it doesn’t impact my own practice and understanding. I think the idea that it either can or can’t is more an obstacle than something of value.