|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 08 2009 : 11:12:54 PM
|
I read a lot of your posts, in which you seem to imply that you have reached a final understanding of emptiness.
I only wrote what I wrote to shock you out of that notion. Because the "fourth major fault" is coming to a final decisive definition/view of emptiness, because there is no such definition/view.
But if you realize that all thoughts are intrinsically free from being "good" or "bad", congrats you are on the right track.
If you realize that all thoughts, are free from a sense of self, congrats you are on the right track.
Just do not fall into the "third major fault." The third major fault is using "emptiness" as an anti-dote to discursive thought and afflictions.
You do not avoid thoughts. You just let them arise, you take a look at them, and let them fall back down...so to speak
If anyone else, who happens to be reading this, gets what I am talking about, congrats. Go and practice thogal or mahamudra or both. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 13 2009 02:22:01 AM |
 |
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 10 2009 : 1:32:39 PM
|
| Many (most?) thoughts are arrranged into a continuous voice in the head, that many people think that is them. If you realize that voice in the head is merely a bunch of thoughts, you can apply what I said above, which is to merely observe them in the present moment. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 13 2009 02:22:40 AM |
|
|
|
stevenbhow
Japan
352 Posts |
Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 08:26:55 AM
|
| I'm not sure if I'm on the right or wrong track, but I feel like I didn't real understand the heart of Buddhism until recently after I started reading Eckhart Tolle. I realize that he doesn't claim to be a Buddhist, but something about how he explains the "Now" really resonates with me. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 6:27:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
Eckhart Tolle basically invokes the trekchöd view in Dzogchen (which is all about the present moment), which is the highest view in Buddism.
Hi Alwayson, Apparently Dzogchen and Mahamudra are identical, just different terms of art and different formats. What I discovered is that Trekchod is synonymous with Mahamudra. The completion stage of Thogal corresponds to the Four Yogas (One-pointed, Nondiscriminatory, One Flavor, Nonmeditation). |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 11 2009 : 10:09:45 PM
|
Well you are 90% correct.
The completion stage practice of Dzogchen, thogal has to do with staring into the periphery of a light source with squinted eyes from one of three postures. This involves the kati channels which connect the eyes to the center channel (sushumna in hinduism).
The completion stage of Mahamudra, involves tummo and other such kundalini type practices, involving manipulations of the psychic currents in the energy body, especially dealing with the center channel.
As you can see completion stage of both systems involves working with the energy body. In fact, this characteristic of working with channels in the body DEFINES COMPLETION STAGE PRACTICE.
P.S. Thoughts are merely movements in certain channels in the body. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 11 2009 11:44:11 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 02:49:14 AM
|
quote:
I'm not even a minor scholar of Buddhism at all but I do like to pick up some interesting nuggets here and there. Did Buddha really say such a thing in the Buddhist 'canon' and where? Would anyone be able to give me a reference to those writings?...
Is anyone able to tell me about where (or whether) Buddha actually said pranayama, mantras etc were irrelevant? I don't know if no-one can refer me to such a thing, or if my question just got overlooked in the flurry of posts....
Hi David,
This does not come from the Pali Cannon, but, as Neptune says, it comes from the oral tradition, which stems from the time of the Buddha. Some Buddhist schools have adhered as closely as possible to the original teachings of the Buddha, and have preserved those teachings until the present day. Others have strayed quite far from the original teachings. Of course it is impossible to know today what oral teachings actually date back to the Buddha himself. What we do know is that he advised against extreme spiritual practices as this is recorded in the Cannon. We also know that many Buddhist teachers today advise against both pranayama and the use of mantras, especially in the Theravada schools of Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand, which have adhered most rigidly to the original teachings.
quote:
Did Buddha use sophisticated yogic practices, then, because of a time-lag, conclude that they had not helped him, while they did actually help him? That certainly seems possible -- this does seem to happen -- that might have happened to U.G. Krishnamurti.
Did he actually only have access to crude yogic practices, and, with some help from the crude practices, have a largely spontaneous awakening? This also seems possible too. It was never easy in the past to find good yoga out there. So maybe he didn't teach advanced yoga because he really didn't learn it.
Did he use sophisticated yogic practices, find them valuable, then conclude that they weren't that valuable for most people, at least at that time, and that the path he offered was better for the masses? That's possible too.
The Buddha did teach advanced yoga. He taught advanced meditation techniques, advanced self inquiry (including advaita), the use of samadhi as a method for reaching enlightenment, moral conduct (vinyana) and to his monks and nuns he taught surrender to a master (Guru yoga). In terms of the eight limbs of yoga he taught yama, niyama, asana, pratyahara, dharana, dyana and samadhi.
I don’t think we will ever know how much more yoga he learned before he started teaching, and how much he left out of his teachings, as it is not well documented.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 02:57:22 AM
|
quote:
This is so wrong!
Buddhist enlightenment means freedom from extremes, because there is NO REALITY.
You are suggesting there is a reality beyond where there is freedom from extremes, such as the Hindu concept of Brahman. This is a common error.
There is NO reality. There is NO ultimate.
The "ultimate" is awakening (through rainbow body).....that is all.
Hi Alwayson,
Awakening to what? And who is awakening? If there is no one to awaken, and nothing to awaken to, then there can be no awakening.
The Buddha did not teach that there is no reality. He taught that every object within the mind has the inherent nature of impermanence and is not our true Self. Can you offer any evidence at all to support the claim that he taught otherwise?
The middle way, or the spiritual path that the Buddha taught was a path between the extremes of asceticism and the worldly life. Enlightenment, nirvana is something much more subtle. Literally it means without flame. It cannot be understood with the mind, but can only be known through silence.
quote:
Tibetan Buddism is sort of a misnomer.
A better way to look at it is the last remaining vestige of the once flourishing and dominant Buddism of India.
It is wrong to suggest that Tibetan Buddism is not really authentic Buddism.
I see it as the ONLY surviving tradition of true Indian Buddism.
You suggest that the energy body, or "tantric" practices of Tibetan Buddism are inventions of the Tibetans.
All pranayama and kundalini type practices are part of the ORIGINAL INDIAN Buddism, and then subsequently imported into Tibet.
I agree with Neptune here. Theravadan Buddhism (otherwise called Hinayana Buddhism) is the most traditional form of Buddhism, and is the closest to the original teaching of the Buddha. Mahayana Buddhism was a later development adding a great deal to the original teachings including ideas about kundalini and Tantra. It came about later (many hundreds of years later), largely as a mixing of yoga and Buddhism. In Tibet, Mahayana Buddhism was mixed with the original Bon religion, which brought the tradition further from the original teachings of the Buddha.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 03:03:11 AM
|
quote:
Hi Christi, No. According the Tibetan Buddhism, at least, our true nature is not a Self; it is not God. An ultimate self is one extreme, and nothingness or nihilism is the other. The middle view is emptiness, a storehouse of all possibilities, the unborn uncreated deathless. At least, this is Nagarjuna's discourse on the Middle Way. Like or hate it.
Even according to the Pali Cannon, the Buddha stated any self even a Self is contained in emptiness, and is a dependent arising. Thus, no Self is ultimately real.
....
To claim that the Buddha's notion of "emptiness" is the same as the yogic notion of "Self" is category error....
It is taught that this "empty awareness" is not a Self, because a "Self" is a mind with objects of awareness, namely, Self and other, a not-empty awareness.
Hi TMS,
What a lot of people there are in this forum who seem to think that they don’t exist, and yet are queuing up to tell me how wrong I am! 
The self you are describing here is the lower self: the ahankara in Sanskrit. In Yoga this self is said to be illusory, just as the Buddha described. The higher Self, the Parampurusha is beyond the mind, beyond all objects. It is empty of all form, and transcends all opposites such as self and other.
The Buddha described the reality of existence beyond the mind only using negative terms: “the uncreated, the unconditioned, the unborn, the undying, the unmanifest”. The words that the Buddha used to describe this reality where not original in Indian thought. These same words had already been used by Krishna a long time before the Buddha was born. In the Bagavad Gita Krishna is said to have used these words to describe his own True nature... “The unborn, the undying, the unmanifest, the unchanging...” (see chapters 4 and 7). In the Bagavad Gita, Krishna is a charioteer for a Prince, but he is simultaneously the Creator of all the universes, the Purushotama, the Parampurusha, the supreme Self of all.
The words that the Buddha used are also used in the Upanishads to describe the very same thing... the supreme Atman, the Higher Self.
Here are some examples:
“That Great unborn self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless; it is Brahman. Brahman is fearless. He who knows this becomes one with the fearless Brahman....
“The Great unborn Self ... is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all.” Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.21
The wise man, renouncing wealth and other worldly goods, practicing yoga and meditating upon the True Self, realizes the Supreme Identity (of himself with Brahman-Atman), which is hard to grasp because it is unmanifest and hidden from ordinary consciousness and thought... He who realizes the Supreme Identity transcends both sorrow and joy...” [Katha Upanishad 1.2.12]
“The True Self (Atman) is not born nor does He die. He has arisen from nothing, and nothing has arisen from Him. Uncreated, eternal, everlasting and ancient- He is not slain when the body is slain... Smaller than the small, greater than the great, The Self is hidden in the hearts of all living beings. A man who is free from desire beholds the majesty of the Self, achieves tranquillity, and becomes free from suffering....” [ Katha Upanishad 1.2.18]
So the Buddha used exactly the same words to describe That which is beyond the mind, as both the Upanishads and the Gita used to describe the supreme Self, which is our own true nature and the true nature of all things. The Mahayana Buddhists use the term “Buddha Nature” to describe the same thing.
This aspect of the Buddha’s teachings has been misunderstood for almost 2 millennia, just as the Buddha predicted. Shankara did a lot to redress this common misunderstanding in the 7th century, as did both Yogananda and Sri Aurobindo in the last century. In the words of Yogananda, the Buddha did not teach that the goal of the spiritual life was annihilation, but salvation.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Jan 12 2009 08:41:12 AM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 09:38:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Hi Christi, No. According the Tibetan Buddhism, at least, our true nature is not a Self; it is not God. An ultimate self is one extreme, and nothingness or nihilism is the other. The middle view is emptiness, a storehouse of all possibilities, the unborn uncreated deathless. At least, this is Nagarjuna's discourse on the Middle Way. Like or hate it.
Even according to the Pali Cannon, the Buddha stated any self even a Self is contained in emptiness, and is a dependent arising. Thus, no Self is ultimately real.
....
To claim that the Buddha's notion of "emptiness" is the same as the yogic notion of "Self" is category error....
It is taught that this "empty awareness" is not a Self, because a "Self" is a mind with objects of awareness, namely, Self and other, a not-empty awareness.
Hi TMS,
What a lot of people there are in this forum who seem to think that they don’t exist, and yet are queuing up to tell me how wrong I am!
The self you are describing here is the lower self: the ahankara in Sanskrit. In Yoga this self is said to be illusory, just as the Buddha described. The higher Self, the Parampurusha is beyond the mind, beyond all objects. It is empty of all form, and transcends all opposites such as self and other.
The Buddha described the reality of existence beyond the mind only using negative terms: “the uncreated, the unconditioned, the unborn, the undying, the unmanifest”. The words that the Buddha used to describe this reality where not original in Indian thought. These same words had already been used by Krishna a long time before the Buddha was born. In the Bagavad Gita Krishna is said to have used these words to describe his own True nature... “The unborn, the undying, the unmanifest, the unchanging...” (see chapters 4 and 7). In the Bagavad Gita, Krishna is a charioteer for a Prince, but he is simultaneously the Creator of all the universes, the Purushotama, the Parampurusha, the supreme Self of all.
The words that the Buddha used are also used in the Upanishads to describe the very same thing... the supreme Atman, the Higher Self.
Here are some examples:
“That Great unborn self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless; it is Brahman. Brahman is fearless. He who knows this becomes one with the fearless Brahman....
“The Great unborn Self ... is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all.” Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.21
The wise man, renouncing wealth and other worldly goods, practicing yoga and meditating upon the True Self, realizes the Supreme Identity (of himself with Brahman-Atman), which is hard to grasp because it is unmanifest and hidden from ordinary consciousness and thought... He who realizes the Supreme Identity transcends both sorrow and joy...” [Katha Upanishad 1.2.12]
“The True Self (Atman) is not born nor does He die. He has arisen from nothing, and nothing has arisen from Him. Uncreated, eternal, everlasting and ancient- He is not slain when the body is slain... Smaller than the small, greater than the great, The Self is hidden in the hearts of all living beings. A man who is free from desire beholds the majesty of the Self, achieves tranquillity, and becomes free from suffering....” [ Katha Upanishad 1.2.18]
So the Buddha used exactly the same words to describe That which is beyond the mind, as both the Upanishads and the Gita used to describe the supreme Self, which is our own true nature and the true nature of all things. The Mahayana Buddhists use the term “Buddha Nature” to describe the same thing.
This aspect of the Buddha’s teachings has been misunderstood for almost 2 millennia, just as the Buddha predicted. Shankara did a lot to redress this common misunderstanding in the 7th century, as did both Yogananda and Sri Aurobindo in the last century. In the words of Yogananda, the Buddha did not teach that the goal of the spiritual life was annihilation, but salvation.
Christi
Okay, Christi, I can see it is a waste of time debating this with you. Buddha-nature and Supreme-Self are not analogous terms. The Buddha used many terms that already existed in Yoga, i.e., karma. The view of emptiness and dependent origination is an original Buddhist view, and has no Vendanta counterpart. No one is saying that the Buddha taught annihilation. You don't understand our point. The middle way is between reification (of a Supreme Self) and nihilism. The view of emptiness is neither. Until you can comment on that, this historical discussion has no point, because we are discussing apples and oranges. Many people set out to prove their points when they have first formed the conclusion. If you believe there is a Supreme Self, then you can find some citations in the Pali Cannon to support that. But that is not honest. If you investigate the meaning of dependent origination, you will find that it is not possible for a Self to persist in an uncaused state. There is only the potentiality. Buddha-nature is the potentiality of a Self, it is not the Self. Buddha-nature is described as a seed, and a Buddha is the lotus. Buddha-nature is merely a potentiality. If you want to find a historical analog, you will find a closer one in the Native American description of the "Creator" as a "Great Mystery." In fact, in the sweat lodges prayers are addressed to "Great Mystery."
You are not wrong, just incomplete in your references. Show us how dependent origination, or interdependent co-arising as neither caused nor uncaused within emptiness corresponds to earlier Vedanta.
From the Buddha's view you mustn't cling to the view of a formless Self as ultimate truth, otherwise you will be reborn in the formless realm. 
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 10:09:47 AM
|
Thanks Christi. Still being no expert myself, I have a strong sense, informed by my own experience of yoga, that you are getting this right. Some have experience but little learning, some have learning but little experience, and you have both.
Alwayson, I can see the possibility of your getting defensive of Tibetan buddhism in response to the above. But let me say one possibly helpful thing: if A is closer to the original teachings of Buddha than B is, that does not mean that A is better than B. Perhaps B is even better than A. The Buddha taught a path but did not say that nothing else could be used. I have for a long time believed that Tibetan Buddhism was not as clost to what the Buddha taught than other schools are, and I still believe it. But that doesnt' mean that I think that the others are necessarily better paths for it. It all comes down to the quality of the specific teachings that one gets.
|
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 10:09:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
Well you are 90% correct.
The completion stage practice of Dzogchen, thogal has to do with staring into the periphery of a light source with squinted eyes from one of three postures. This involves the kati channels which connect the eyes to the center channel (sushumna in hinduism).
The completion stage of Mahamudra, involves tummo and other such kundalini type practices, involving manipulations of the psychic currents in the energy body, especially dealing with the center channel.
As you can see completion stage of both systems involves working with the energy body. In fact, this characteristic of working with channels in the body DEFINES COMPLETION STAGE PRACTICE.
P.S. Thoughts are merely movements in certain channels in the body.
Well what I was told by the Kagyu lama is that there is a step after the kundalini work involving meditation with direct "experience." He's not telling me what that is, yet. He said the Six Yogas of Naropa are like an airplane to India and Mahamudra is India. It's possible I didn't understand him well. I know from things he showed me that he is trusted with the secret teachings of his order. Why he showed me is sort of overwhelming. He thinks my knowledge is really good. I've been questioned over about 10 hrs in the past few sessions by the lama and another monk.
So Alwayson, you are better than me. Why don't you teach dharma? You should work with a lama who can help you with meditation. Or do you already do that?
TMS |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 10:23:03 AM
|
TMS said:
The view of emptiness and dependent origination is an original Buddhist view, and has no Vendanta counterpart.
Yes, it's an original description of a tail on an elephant. But it is not an original elephant's tail, or the tail of an original elephant.
The middle way is between reification (of a Supreme Self) and nihilism.
So it is -- the Buddha found reification of a Supreme Self to be a problemmatic aspect of teaching, which it can be -- it can get in the way of enlightenment. So he devised a teaching method to get around that problem, that's all. It's not true that he's talking about a different elephant though. He's talking differently about the same elephant.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 10:51:00 AM
|
I think this thread should be titled "Buddhist Semantics". Does ANY of this REALLY matter?
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Jan 12 2009 4:24:04 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5201 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 12:12:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
So it is -- the Buddha found reification of a Supreme Self to be a problemmatic aspect of teaching, which it can be -- it can get in the way of enlightenment. So he devised a teaching method to get around that problem, that's all. It's not true that he's talking about a different elephant though. He's talking differently about the same elephant.
Hi David and All:
Yes, and that elephant is the human nervous system, with its inherent spiritual capabilities. There is only one of those, and the destination can only be known by the experiencer.
Discussions of a destination or underlying reality are pure speculation, even when presented by the enlightened, because it will mean little to nearly everyone else. Much better we each engage in sound practices and move forward. Then we will find out what it is in daily living, and can share that in our own words, while wisely acknowledging anyone else's sharing of their experience. In that way, we can develop a profile of human enlightenment and the paths to it, without dividing up into armed camps. There is no such thing as a "one and only way." There is a one and only vehicle for spiritual experience, the human nervous system, and many approaches for enabling its full capabilities.
It is about our journey right now, and what means can facilitate our process of inner purification and opening day by day. It is about cause and effect, and our direct experience as we move forward. That is real. Intellectual presentations of the nature of reality, no matter how profound or pedigreed, are unreal.
Direct experience on the level of each individual is the final arbiter of the value of any path. It is not about debating which is the most authentic ancient knowledge. It is about what practices will work to open us in the present. It is not so difficult. We can readily see what works and what does not by optimizing causes and effects in practice.
So, what is the system of practice being proposed here? Or are there several? That is fine too. Whatever works!
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 4:01:46 PM
|
| "An ounce of practice is better than tons of theory. Practice Yoga, Religion and Philosophy in daily life and attain Self-realization." (swami Sivananda) |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 4:20:46 PM
|
Of course, direct experience is most important. I totally agree with Yogani. The thing is that Madhyamaka and dependent origination are so WeiRD, you might "miss" them while on the road to awakening. So my point is just, to be aware of them.
Merely knowing about dependent origination and Madhyamaka from his previous lives, is what allowed Buddha to obtain his awakening which went beyond all the enlightenments he had previously mastered from his "Hindu" (hinduism did not exist yet) teachers.
|
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 12 2009 4:52:54 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 4:28:35 PM
|
Dear TMS,
Yeah the whole kundalini thing in Completion Stage involves multiple stages, steps and techniques. If you are an official student of the lama, I would press gently for some of the much more advanced stuff, because life is short. You could even tell him that. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 12 2009 4:53:40 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 4:45:23 PM
|
| Christi there is no such thing as Buddha nature. It was an invented concept for only beginners to use, until they understood Madhyamaka and dependent origination. |
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 4:55:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
I think this thread should be titled "Buddhist Semantics". Does ANY of this REALLY matter?
Love,
Carson
I think so. The view of dependent origination and Madhyamaka allowed Buddha to surpass others while using the same yoga techniques. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 5:08:37 PM
|
Hi alwayson,
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
I think so. The view of dependent origination and Madhyamaka allowed Buddha to surpass others while using the same yoga techniques.
So you then obviously perscribe to the notion that there IS a "one and only way" or at least one way that is far superior to all others correct? All roads lead home my friend and everyone is different with different karmic blockages. No one way will be the way for everyone or even most people. We all have to find our own way. I'm sure that was what the Buddha really taught, same as I believe that is what Jesus really taught. No one REALLY knows for sure.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Jan 12 2009 5:20:04 PM |
|
|
|
Katrine
Norway
1813 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 5:38:19 PM
|
Hi Alwayson
Has all that you know (your knowledge is amazing ) regarding this topic brought you closer to direct experience of inner silence (or emptiness...if you prefer that term)? Did it/does it help you to let go?
What initiated the break-throughs you have experienced over the years? I experience that the break throughs are all about coming to terms with surrendering....in many different areas (but the surrendering is always the same).....Life in general has been - and still is - the greatest teacher.....do you find that too?
You have so much knowledge.....it would be great if you could share a little from your own journey into truth - while relating it to Madhyamaka, Bhudda or Vedanta...or any other Way This way, I would understand more what you are talking about...
If you were to sum up the goal of your practise in one sentence, what would it be?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CarsonZi
I think this thread should be titled "Buddhist Semantics". Does ANY of this REALLY matter?
Love,
Carson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think so. The view of dependent origination and Madhyamaka allowed Buddha to surpass others while using the same yoga techniques.
To me.....everything boils down to being still inside....so I am wondering: How exactly is this matter going to help you stay Quiet inside?
Are you not practising in order to be empty ?
quote:
Christi there is no such thing as Buddha nature. It was an invented concept for only beginners to use, until they understood Madhyamaka and dependent origination.
In that respect, how can any concept - new or old - be of use as to resting in inner silence?
Is it not here? Now?
|
|
|
|
alwayson
Canada
288 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 6:50:38 PM
|
You wanted a summmary of my goal.
Basically, you want to completely center yourself in the present moment. But you do NOT avoid or analyze thoughts or emotions that come up.
Basically the view you want to have is that thoughts and emotions are liberated like a burglar in an empty house. This analogy is straight from Dzogchen (Jigme Lingpa and ultimately Vimalamitra). In other words, thoughts and emotions are harmless. Often thoughts combine together into a voice in the head, which many people think is them. Also, I would like to add, there is no such thing as good or bad thoughts. Remember, though not to analyze, like I have just here.
Read some of my other posts for more information.
Then once you have some experience, you can try to obtain the rainbow body (Buddhahood) through either kundalini, thogal or both. |
Edited by - alwayson on Jan 13 2009 02:19:34 AM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 7:14:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
TMS said:
The view of emptiness and dependent origination is an original Buddhist view, and has no Vendanta counterpart.
Yes, it's an original description of a tail on an elephant. But it is not an original elephant's tail, or the tail of an original elephant.
The middle way is between reification (of a Supreme Self) and nihilism.
So it is -- the Buddha found reification of a Supreme Self to be a problemmatic aspect of teaching, which it can be -- it can get in the way of enlightenment. So he devised a teaching method to get around that problem, that's all. It's not true that he's talking about a different elephant though. He's talking differently about the same elephant.
He's talking more clearly about the same elephant. Talking about a Self is talking more obscured about the same elephant. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 7:17:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
I think this thread should be titled "Buddhist Semantics". Does ANY of this REALLY matter?
Love,
Carson
It matters in meditation. Yoga is not the field of "no mind" meditation like Taoists or Zen. Mind is part of the path to tranquility and insight. So the correct view supports clarity in the direct experience, an unobscured direct experience. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2009 : 7:18:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson
Dear TMS,
Yeah the whole kundalini thing in Completion Stage involves multiple stages, steps and techniques. If you are an official student of the lama, I would press gently for some of the much more advanced stuff, because life is short. You could even tell him that.
He already offered, but he wants me to do a one week retreat to learn them. I will in the next month or so. He's started me with the investigation of mind. "What color? What size? Where?, etc." I have some experience with this already, but it is fun to do this exercise. It is a way to cut to the present constant arising of thought from an indeterminate source. |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Jan 12 2009 7:50:55 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The One & Only Way
