Jonesboy

On 2/10/2020 at 9:48 AM, ilumairen said:

 

Yes, and you and your group seem to be rather attached to ideas about Jeff. And one of the ways this attachment manifests is in a focus on the attachments of individuals not aligning themselves with this strongly held idea/ideal. 

 

If you don't like the practice then you don't have to do it. Nobody has attachments to individuals. People come and go, work with people or they don't. It is all up to them. That is just something you are trying to make into an issue.

 

Quote

 

 

Yes, except...

 

 

I don't recall you ever being accused of this (astral rape), but perhaps I'm wrong.. 

 

You are wrong, everyone associated was accused.

 

Quote

 

Then again, it could be your own attachment to Jeff and taking accusations against him as personally against you. 

 

In any case, it only serves to highlight how you justify your attachment and reactivity, while denouncing others for what you perceive as theirs. 

 

Uh, you mentioned my name and my practices. Now you are trying to side step it..

 

Quote

 

How did you guys treat Lori when the post was initially made BTW?

 

We left it open, asked her to comment on it and she refused. 

 

When we created a new site we closed the thread as it was just an attack with no other dialogue. 

 

Quote

 

 

She's here and is able to speak for herself. Unless of course, you feel a need to gaslight her experience.. 

 

Can you show examples of us gaslighting people? Again, it is just you attacking people and assigning motives.

 

Quote

 

 

Rarely. And what is the manner of answer when you do?

 

And, out of curiosity, in your opinion, what is the reason people "attack" your "us"? What is the underlying theme of these "attacks"? What is the common denominator? And what circumstances precipitate them?

 

There is Bindi and you who do the most attacking. 

 

Most just don't agree with his view or think shared energy work is bad.

 

Quote

 

 

Why would you, until now I haven't said much. 

 

We can just ignore the present flurry of PMs falling like so much snow these days..

 

 

"Even after being warned?"

 

When did any of you "warn" me about anything?

 

But let me guess, you are either talking about my previous practice of looping (what I called a rather simple Tonglen practice) or your conjecture on my interactions with others (one other in particular).

 

I am referring to your interaction in the chat room with an individual that created a serious issue you were warned about before you started.

 

Quote

 

Go ahead, bring them up directly instead of alluding to warnings which never happened and your "higher" stance in regard to what little you know. 

 

It's just another red herring, and I neither "loop", nor even enter chatrooms anymore. 

 

Glad you stopped. I am not here to attack you. That seems to be your job.

 

Quote

 

 

Recruit is my word, what you typed was about me not bringing people to Jeff. Perhaps you don't remember, but as you accused me of being a little spider on the wall in the same conversation, and nobody said anything, I was not only taken aback (concluding what you presented to indeed be, if not expected then at least, accepted), and the emotion left a little karmic seed of memory.

 

Spider on the wall because you would sit in chat quietly until you would attack me for some wrong.

 

I never, ever ask anyone to recruit anyone. Nice side step.

 

Quote

If you slow down, perhaps you'll recall it was about the long quotes from past masters - which somehow I would become aware of even while sleeping. 

 

Remember, you started putting them in the reveal hidden contents window, so people could decide to open them or not?

 

 

And what on earth does this have to do with the conversation?

 

 

Not me, the others. This goes back to empowering them.

 

 

I haven't made anything up, although you seem to have a selective memory, or rather selective forgetfulness.

 

 

I believe entanglements are created in the "helping," and would prefer a more empowering/less dependent approach. 

 

I seem to have messed up the quote system..

 

No, you asking me to hide long posts was in a thread here at the bums. Our conversation was in chat. If you remember when you first came around you tried to change me. Told me how I was acting wrong, shouldn't debate even when I was right. How you could feel peoples emotions just from a post. Their fears, anger, etc. I do agree. Sometimes you just have to stop. Not all the advice was bad but we did have it.

 

You would prefer? Okay, that is your view. There is no dependency on what we do. I also don't see how it is not empowering to others.

 

It is a different view on the issue.

 

Quote

 

 

See Tom, here's the thing, what is left when the narrative is gone? 

 

What is it sustaining the narrative, and what purpose does it serve?

 

You are sustaining the narrative with your anger at Jeff. Why? We were friends, my wife was your friend and now you are attacking everyone. For what purpose indeed?

 

Quote

 

 

As my dad liked to say, "no shit Sherlock."

 

 

You are welcome; just remember empowerment and not dependence please. 

 

There is no dependence, that is just your personal view. The change in being is empowerment.

 

We are free to disagree.

 

Quote

 

 

No, he's just the "battery pack" according to his analogy. 

 

This would imply (to the recipients of this message) he's the powerful battery they would need a jump start (for their weaker batteries) from to reach "higher levels."

 

People reach higher levels by clearing out issues and fears. One can be helped or taken deeper but the only way to remain at them is to clear out the underlying junk. Nothing wrong with some help.

 

Quote

 

 

 

Seemed more narrative than perspective, but thanks for joining the discussion. 

 

 

 

I would agree with that from many here.

18 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Quote

He, and his group, love to write things off as subconscious or underlying issues of whoever's discontent with him, and have a tendency to go at discontents hard - instead of offering any support to the issues either created or deepened through his manipulative interactions

 

It's called attachments. Pretty basic spirituality.

 

We don't go after anyone. I have gone after one person because they accused me and others of astral rape which you KNOW is not true. They had a dream and then wanted to blame it on us. Then went on to attack us for years. There are tons of threads here at the bums with people attacking us and we rarely answer back. Has anyone went after you? Mentioned your actions and the effects your practices have had on others even after being warned? Nope. You attack and we don't say a thing.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Quote

While I was there Tom actively recruited troubled individuals with offers of help - just as Lori described in the previously deleted post. And he actively expressed anger with me for not bringing people to Jeff. Recruitment is expected, and another had offered Jeff's "help" to me (which I didn't act upon) prior to Jeff himself messaging me

 

 

Nobody is expected to recruit anyone. I have never asked anyone to recruit people. I have never, ever been mad at you for not recruiting anyone. If i remember correctly you were upset with me because my posts at the bums would wake you up. That even when I was right in a debate about Rigpa I should have just stopped instead of debating others. You were upset that I lead dives and didn't give you and others more of an opportunity to lead them.

 

You can be upset with Jeff all you want but you don't have to lie and make up stuff.

 

Also, yes I do believe Jeff, I and others can help people. I have seen it to many times to doubt it. Offering help is not a bad thing. You don't have to stay, you don't have to accept. Maybe you try it and it is not your thing. 

 

18 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Quote

 

The illusion is Jeff's power and the woven narrative...

 

One day a younger person I had some affinity with was troubled, and at one point (pursuant to the practices then) I told him if he would like he could wrap my energy around him like a comforting blanket. Jeff arrived as the interaction was playing out, and asked if the young man felt any difference in my energy and Jeff's. The response was initially yes, and upon further questioning it became clear he only said yes because he thought it was the answer wanted..

 

 

No other explanation? No other reason possibility beyond what you think was going on? You really think it is all about power? You are just assuming but never asked? Maybe it was about the other person and had nothing to do with you? 

 

Also, thank you for the blanket method. I use it all the time.

 

 

18 hours ago, ilumairen said:

I spent some time considering this.. the individual only needed some sense of support, and what arose for him was a manifestation of his own "power" which he was (prior to our interaction) not connecting with. 

 

Jeff, the human battery pack, is (imo) through his own (and the group shared) narrative crafting and creating dependencies which elevate him, using what should be placed back on the individuals empowering them. 

 

Haven't you ever wondered why the "powerful" and "good" stuff is all about him, and the "weak" and "bad" is all placed on the individuals?

 

There is also one more thing I've seriously considered, and this has to do with wind disorders, and how someone could utilize (a misunderstanding of) them to manipulate people to some misguided sense of the "outside" parties power..

 

Clear your obstructions and realize the clarity underneath it all. I have never heard Jeff or anyone at PW use the term weak or that someone is bad. I have also never heard Jeff use the term powerful as a reference to himself when working with someone.

 

Again, no need to respond. I won't be checking back for an answer. I just thought I would add a little perspective.

Edited..

 

Always interesting to see how people really think of you that you thought were friends and had respect for each other.

 

Never mind responding.. 

11 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

Hi Bindi I have forgotten are you one of the cult of Jeff members? 

 

 

 

 

On 12/1/2018 at 4:35 AM, Marblehead said:

Keep in mind, I'm not average.

 

 

No, no he wasn't.

 

He still brings a smile to my face. He was pretty unique.

1 hour ago, sean said:

Imagine thinking that having an uncompromising stance against homophobia is fanaticism though.

 

Imagine tolerance in an online spiritual forum. Not all countries have the same values but with tolerance one could come to such places to learn and grow.

5 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

And Steve's post was in response to s1va's post - which he quoted. There were no assertions at all in regard to what you didn't say.

 

Well, it was 5:45 am.. I hadn't had any coffee yet.. I am always a little slow till bedtime anyways.. Thank God it's Friday!!

5 minutes ago, rex said:

 

Sorry Jonesboy, I totally misread this question and read it as 'What's Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya got to do with all this?', hence the slightly exasperated response. Simple answer is I don't know, but will hazard a totally personal, non-authorative guess.

 

Dharmakaya itself has no will but the Sambhogakaya does. There is a phrase, 'one ground, two paths'  where the difference between ordinary beings and buddhas is that of non-recognition of the Dharmakaya. Buddhas recognise the Dharmakaya and see all phenomena as its infinite magical display and will enters with their activity.

 

 

 

I remember an exchange we had on this thread where your motivation for studying Buddhism as a non-Buddhist  was  to connect to sources of wisdom, irrespective of source and traditionalist views, and also teach others how to do this. With your clear interest in Buddhism, does your practice still involve merging with Buddhas? And if so, from your experience of this, where do you find that Buddhism is wrong?

 

Do you have a 'home tradition' or are you more like a honey bee receiving the 'nectar of wisdom' from many different flowers?

 

 

 

Thank you Rex for that explanation.

 

Yes, I still merge/connect with Divine Beings.

 

Where to me Buddhism is wrong is that there is no such thing as the last few pages has demonstrated where there are two beings that can merge. Buddhism also doesn't believe that another person can directly introduce others to differing states of mind or to give one a direct taste of different states of being. It does not believe in a sharing of oneness with others. It does not believe that one being can help another let go of obstructions through the sharing of ones clarity for instance

 

All the above is part of my practice and also very much a part of Kashmir Shaivism. Yet, KS get's some stuff wrong that Buddhism get's right in my view.

 

I would like to say I don't teach others to connect to sources of wisdom, irrespective of source and traditionalist views. I think it is important and very respectful to understand those traditional views. If I am in a Hindu section of the forum I will stay within KS, if in the Buddhism section I try to stay pure Buddhism, if in the general.. well I am free to share my views a little more openly.

10 hours ago, steve said:

 

Clarity as I’ve been taught,

is not a thought,

nor is it thought,

not a state of mind,

nor even experienced by mind.

 

it is a characteristic of the mind’s Essence which is the Ground of All thought and perception.

 

It is not generated or induced,

never shared, merged, maintained,

 

It is always ever-present,

often unseen,

indestructible, complete, and perfectly clear,

sometimes revealing its nature 

to the Blessed Ones!

 

 

 

 

Clarity to me has many aspects.. I am just quoting a Dzogchen Master and going from there..

 

We can say it is the ground of all thought but then again.. from that ground, thoughts arise.. what then is thinking?

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I mentioned the state of mind.  I stated it's my view and I was not referring to Norbu or Dzogchen.

 

I know Siva, I liked your post but I was referring to Steve's post..

10 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions, or even questioning Buddhism. My personal, subjective sense of your posts was that you were not so much interested in learning about Buddhism, but rather you wished to fit Buddhism into a model you had already constructed. 

 

The tricky thing about Buddhism is the language and the many traditions. The same words mean different things in different contexts. In other words, there is a type of secret code that is usually only explained in person by a teacher. Not only that, but the meanings are very contextual--- words don't stand by themselves. They are a part of an interconnected web of meanings. One reason why Tibetan Buddhists study so many Buddhist philosophies is to tease apart these meanings and avoid the numerous pitfalls to spiritual practice. It gets even more confusing with the same word is used by other traditions. For example, atman in a Yogacara Buddhist context merely refers to the (illusory) subjective side of experience. But in Vedanta, the meaning is much different-- atman is Brahman for example. In addition, atman can also just mean the mere "I" as in "I walked to the store." Some people hear the Buddha in the Pali Canon saying atta (Pali for atman), atta and think that means he is obsessed with a permanent soul! 

 

Many Vedantins and Shaivites that I've known and studied with have taught that emptiness is Buddhism is roughly equivalent to the experience of the anandamaya kosha or causal body. Yet this would be roughly equivalent to the alaya vijnana in Mahayana Buddhism, which is clearly a state of ignornace. But then vijnana is Vedanta may refer to something else--- a specific part of the mind for example (vijnanamaya kosha). Then the alaya vijnana may mean something else entirely in Kagyu Mahamudra. And it gets even more confusing in Pali, because the equivalent for manas, citta, and vijnana are all mixed up, but these have precise definitions in Vedanta.  

 

So you can see, it can be quite challenging without the guidance of an experienced teacher. And given the ambiguity of the words, it is easy enough to read what we want into them. 

 

 

 

[snip]

 

 

I would agree that there are clear differences between Buddhism and it's terms and meanings compared to Vedantins and Shaivites.

 

I do have my view but I have not really tried to express it. They are all separate. My view does incorporate many aspects of different traditions but that is not what I have been doing.

13 hours ago, steve said:

 

The clarity that Norbu refers to is not a state of mind. It is the primordially pure essence of awareness.

 

I didn't say it was a state of mind, different states of mind is a perfect reference of one still in local mind.

 

Yet that essence still has thoughts...

13 hours ago, steve said:

If a Buddha is restricted or limited, she is not a Buddha. The restriction is about mind interfering. That which realizes or has clarity is liberated.

 

I am referring to Buddhist teachings that does say that some Buddha's are limited.

 

Quote

Buddhahood is different. Here is a list of the different types of Buddhas.

http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Three_types_of_Buddha

 

A Pratekya Buddha from what I have read achieves Buddhahood but doesn't have the same abilities.

 

"According to the Theravada school, paccekabuddhas ("one who has attained to supreme and perfect insight, but who dies without proclaiming the truth to the world")[2] are unable to teach the Dhamma, which requires[3] the omniscience and supreme compassion of a sammāsambuddha, and even he hesitates to attempt to teach."

Buddhahood is different. Here is a list of the different types of Buddhas.

http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Three_types_of_Buddha

 

A Pratekya Buddha from what I have read achieves Buddhahood but doesn't have the same abilities.

 

"According to the Theravada school, paccekabuddhas ("one who has attained to supreme and perfect insight, but who dies without proclaiming the truth to the world")[2] are unable to teach the Dhamma, which requires[3] the omniscience and supreme compassion of a sammāsambuddha, and even he hesitates to attempt to teach."

 

6 minutes ago, C T said:

Do clouds exist? lol 

 

They may have an appearance of adorning the sky, but really, they do not have any inherent existence. 

Yet, they have apparent mass, and relative to the size of an aircraft, can be "felt" on contact. 

Thoughts no different. 

 

I agree yet ones attachment or clarity can have a huge impact on ones life.

12 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

If there are "thoughts of clarity" then one has not realized the Primordial State.

It is the discursive mind that gives rise to thoughts of clarity.

 

 

 

I believe that you are but perhaps don't realize it.

It is hard-wired into us at the most fundamental levels of mind.

 

 

 

Dudjom Rinpoche's thoughts are just that, the thoughts of a person.

That is a manifestation of the discursive mind.

There is no "Universal Mind" posited in Buddhism or Bon.

We do speak of the Nature of Mind but thoughts are not a characteristic of the Nature of Mind, just the mind itself.

Buddhism also does not teach there is "no self."

In my opinion, that is a misunderstanding and an error of nihilism.

The "something of differing levels of realization that expresses it" is the human mind.

There are infinite degrees of subtlety and realization. 

What more does there need to be?

 

 

 

Your posts suggest that you may be conflating different meanings that can be associated with the word clarity.

It is primarily used to point to the "awareness" or "presence" aspect of the Natural State but the word clarity in particular is used as it also connotes being clear or empty as well as precise.

 

Thank you Steve for jumping in. Always have fun discussing things with you.

 

First, with regard to clarity and thoughts.

 

Quote

DZOGCHEN
THE SELF-PERFECTED STATE
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

 

The manifestation of the primordial state in all its aspects,
its "clarity," on the other hand, is called the nature. It is said
to be "self-perfected" (lhun grub), because it exists spontaneously
from the beginning, like the sun which shines in
space. Clarity is the pure quality of all thought and of all
perceived phenomena, uncontaminated by mental judgment.
For example, when we see a flower, we first perceive
its image without the mind entering into judgment, even if
this phase of perception only lasts for a fraction of a second.
Then, in a second phase, mental judgment enters into the
situation and one categorizes the perception, thinking,
"That's a flower, it's red, it has a specific scent, and so on."
Developing from this, attachment and aversion, acceptance
and rejection all arise, with the consequent creation of karma and transmigration. Clarity is the phase in which perception
is vivid and present, but the mind has not yet entered
into action. It is the spontaneous manifestation of the
individual's state. The same is true for thoughts: if we don't
follow them, and don't become caught up in mental judgment,
they too are part of our natural clarity.

 

The Lankavatara Sutra discusses Universal Mind.

 

 

Differing levels of realization is me referring to the different types of Buddha's as was discussed earlier. I should have been clearer.. but to me if a Buddha is restricted or limited.. it is about realization/clarity.

I found this on another forum. If others agrees it can help answer my question.

 

Quote

 

Do Buddha now all have different individual personalities? I was always taught that there is no difference between Buddha's and the only reason they have individual names is because we gave them different names to distinguish one Buddha manifestation from another, but to view them as different "Buddha's" is to create a duality in Enlightenment.

There are no differences between one Buddha and another in terms of realization; there are differences in terms of aspirations, and so on., which give rise to differences in sentient beings karmic connections with this buddhafield and that, and so on. In short, everyone who becomes a Buddha starts out as a sentient being, and there is a unique rosary of clarity that continues from the time of being a sentient being through the attainment of Vajradhara which forms the relative basis for Buddhahood.

 

Loppon Malcom

 

 

53 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Im okay howsoever you want to slice it, man, although finding pan-traditional commonalities may not always be a smooth endeavour, at least for me. I wont even use the term "truth".... such a subjective proposition. 

 

As for your question, its difficult to proffer any meaningful answer since the question is based on the assumption that there is a fixed entity able to recognise his or her own level of clarity upon "realizing" the nature of mind. Accordingly, the peerless Dudjom Rinpoche explained thus: "But what — you may ask — is it like to recognize the face of non-dual awareness? Although one experiences it, one cannot describe it. It would be like a mute person trying to describe dreams. It is impossible to distinguish between oneself resting in non-dual awareness and the non-dual awareness one is experiencing." 

 

The idea of there being a state of clarity post realization is also just a thought, a pointing finger, a wave upon the ocean. The impersonal processes of mind doing its own thing, forming thoughts, is intricately woven into identity - we take for granted that "I" am responsible for thoughts arising, and we claim ownership. This claiming or fabrication of inherent ownership is the cause of samsara, or so the Buddha said. A Buddhist practitioner does not take the Buddha at his words. He is told to investigate and discover if indeed such is the case. In fact, nothing the Buddha taught has any inherent truth. Until one applies the teaching and allow personal insight to confirm the many considerations put forth by him, it is unwise to exclaim "This is such, that is not such", when in fact, the correct approach would be, "This is such because that is such". What you consider to be clarity is relative to your own understanding, and another cannot claim to share the exact understanding. 

 

 

 

Maybe truth is the wrong term. More my realizations have been in line with much of Buddhist teachings..

 

I am not talking ownership of a thought or an "I" from a Buddhist perspective. Yet Dudjom Rinpoche formed thoughts to say the above. Is it the Universal Mind? There is no self, some place somewhere made up of things in some location. Again, the point is showing there is a unique.. something of differing levels of realization that expresses it.

 

Clarity is very important which is why Dzogchen talks about it being an aspect of the Primordial State.

1 minute ago, C T said:

Absolutely fine with asking questions, Jonesboy. 

 

To avoid confusion that pops up the odd time when questions veer into comparisons with other traditions where tendency to conflate often arises,  might it be more helpful to narrow the questions in their appropriate contexts? What may appear parallel to you may not always be that way in fact, and sometimes its good to bear in mind that there will always be subtle meanings and application differences which can lead to outcomes of understanding that likely vary from person to person, so I guess what Forestofemptiness is asking for is the consideration of the usefulness of approximating the notion that what is found to be workable (leading to insight) in one tradition may not necessarily work the same way in another. This is not to say it wont work for you, but in terms of discourse, such approximations seldom yield much clarity. Thats how i would tend to view it. Perhaps others might have a different take. 

 

Truly delighted to hear you are working daily on your path, and you are wished the very best!  

 

Thank you CT.

 

I do reserve the right to bring in a different traditions teachings to help clarify my meaning on a topic. The last few pages have pretty much stayed within Buddhism.

 

Another way of looking at it for me, within my tradition, is finding the truth in all traditions so with that being said one shouldn't be surprised if I do sneak in a post here or there. This thread isn't just about Buddhism.

 

A pure Buddhist question is who/what is having thoughts of clarity when one has realized the Primordial State? Purely on topic before people decided to start asking me why I am asking Buddhist questions about Buddhism on a spiritual forum

13 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

May I ask a side question? If you are not a Buddhist, your practices are much different than Buddhism, and I assume you are happy with said tradition and practices, what is the point of wasting time learning about another path? Wouldn't your time and energy be better spent on clarifying and deepening your current path? 

 

I say that because an unwillingness to engage in Buddhism on its own terms, coupled with a demand that it disclose to you its precious secrets, is a bit---- misguided? 

 

Having said that, Tibetan Buddhism is not anti-conceptual. In fact, obtaining the proper concepts is considered quite essential to reaching the proper non-conceptual. Of course it must be so or we would be enlightened when we went into deep sleep, or a drunk stupor, or some similar state. 

 

 

 

I have found many truths and parallels in my path in Buddhism, the same could be said for Kashmir Shaivism and the teachings of Jesus.

 

I like to learn and study all traditions.

 

Every moment of every day is working on my current path. Having these discussions is just a small part of that.

 

I am more than willing to discuss Buddhism on it's own terms. I do it all the time. If you were to search for the term Rigpa you would see lot's of discussions from me on the topic. Asking clarifying questions about Buddhism is what a student of the art is suppose to do is it not?

 

My latest question in the thread is for a Buddha, who/what is having thoughts of clarity? That seems to be a tough question. 

 

This thread was a split from what does Buddhism get wrong. You will see in an depth discussion of merging and guru stuff that is far different than Buddhism. Much of which Buddhism say's isn't possible. A thread ebbs and flows from Buddhism to my own practices and back and forth. People ask me tough questions and I hope, I ask them back.

 

I find nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

 

All the best.

15 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

If you want to see as a Buddha sees, there is only one way: become a Buddha. Building a mental model of a state that is beyond conception is not going to be helpful.

 

I think a lot of confusion arises when we start at the most subtle teachings without first cultivating other teachings, like Abhidharma and Madhyamika. YMMV.

 

 

 

I think I am challenging concepts not building them.

 

As this thread describes from the very beginning, I am not a Buddhist and my practices are much different than anything in Buddhism.

57 minutes ago, rex said:

What an astonishing question for a thread on guru yoga! Have you heard of the Prayer to the Three Kaya Guru? @Apech, not part of your tradition either?

 

No, I had not.

 

Thank you.

48 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Actually as I understand it, there is no going from one kaya to another.  I used the image before on another thread of looking at a pool of water or looking into it.  It seems different ... but same water of course.  But you have a point about what chooses or wills to see it this way or that way.  Indeed what is 'will' anyway.  Interesting thought.

Quote

 

Thinking more of intent. If a Buddha wanted to grow in size it is will/intent that does it.

 

Mixing traditions but to help with my meaning.

 

From the Shiva Sutras.

 

Quote

1.13. icchā śaktirūmā kumāri

 

His will is the energy of Lord Śiva and it is called umā and kumāri, or for such a yogī his will is one with the energy of Lord Śiva, unobstructable, completely independent, always given to play.

 

1.14. dṛiśyaṁ śarīram

 

This entire perceived world is his own self, or 
His own body is just like an object to him.

 

1.15. hṛidaye cittasaṁghaṭṭād dṛiśyasvāpadarśanam

 

When his thoughts are diverted to the center of God consciousness then he feels the existence of God con- sciousness in oneness in the objective world and in the world of negation.

 

1.16. śuddha-tattva-saṁdhānādvā’paśuśaktiḥ

 

Or by aiming at the pure element of Śiva he possesses Śiva’s unlimited energy.

 

1.17. vitarka ātmajñānam

 

Any inference of such a yogī is knowledge of his own real self.

 

1.18. lokānandaḥ samādhisukham

 

The joy of his mystical trance (samādhi) is bliss for the whole universe.

 

1.19. śaktisandhāne śarīrotpattiḥ

 

By infusing his energy of will the embodiment of that which is willed occurs at once.

 

45 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Perhaps "will" isn't quite the right word? Instead of "has the will to go", naturally manifests according to conditions may be closer. 

 

More of a KS thinking but one could look at it much like Apech mentioned. The Buddha could teleport, see with his Divine Eye. He would choose to do so or not depending on the audience and if it would help or not.

 

The Primordial State has 3 aspects. Void, energy and clarity. What then is having thoughts? What is then using intent/will to do anything like see or teleport or to reprimand a student?

1 hour ago, rex said:

Conceptually the answers to these questions are quite straight forward, but I’m no Buddhist scholar. Speaking as one confused man to another, I can’t presume to know what a Buddha perceives and can only extrapolate and speculate from some general principles.

 

At the Dharmakaya level there is no differentiation at all, Buddhas don’t exist. At the Sambhogakaya level the two Buddhas would perceive differentiation and see forms which have spontaneously arisen from the Dharmakaya in response to the specific needs, capacities and collective merit of beings. At  the Nirmanakaya level they would perceive what other ordinary beings would perceive, a  form of flesh and blood. Logically they would see all three levels simultaneously.

 

When Buddha spoke of previous Buddhas he could have been referring to the spontaneous manifestations of the Dharmakaya as well as the different types of Buddhas who attained Buddhahood in different ways (https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Category:Paths_and_Stages). 

 

A number of factors would determine the ability to benefit others if Buddhahood was achieved in the present form. Firstly the amount of merit accumulated to be able to benefit others and secondly the karmic connections others have with the form and their merit to be able to receive benefit from that specific form. The body would continue to manifest according to the karmic causes and conditions which bought it into interdependent existence and would continue to be subject to that karma and interdependence.

 

What is it that has the will to go from the Dharmakaya to the Sambhogakaya?

2 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

I've mentioned "in equipoise" and "post equipose" before.. 

 

In equipose there is nothing to say and no one to say it.

 

Post equipoise, conversations may be had - and they're empty. The words shared and the ear hearing them or eye seeing them - all empty. 

 

There is still something that goes from equipoise to post equipoise.