Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential

[C T]

Inner Heat (Tummo)

 

Tummo, meaning inner fire, is a Tibetan buddhist practice that utilizes specific breathing, movements and visualizations to enter a deep meditative state that increases inner heat and awakens natural wisdom.

 

According to Tulku Lobsang, Tummo is the transmutation of negative energies into wisdom. Central to Tummo is Inner fire, bliss and pure awareness. To have pure awareness, Rigpa, you need bliss - and to have bliss, you need fire. To discover your pure awareness is the ultimate goal, which we call liberation or enlightenment.

 

The source of the fire comes from life itself. The first fuel is to open body to love people - for if you do not, it becomes cold.

 

The second fuel is to love the opposite sex, or the same sex, if that is your cup of tea.

 

The third fuel is having a good relationship with your sexual energy - in other words, sex is seen as holy, instead of sinful and dirty. To have a negative relationship with these fuels means to keep your body ‘cold’.

 

Tummo is a way to open up your body, but before we do that - Tulku Lobsang suggests to open up of hearts first, lest we are unable to control the tremendous power of the body. To open our hearts, he recommends practicing compassion, kindness, and Bodhicitta, the awakened mind. 

 

— Paraphrased from Lyudmila Klasanova’s “Inner-fire meditation" with Tulku Lobsang Rinpoche

Edited August 10, 2022 by C T

[C T]

MINDROLLING KHANDRO RINPOCHE 

 

 

"[...] At the end of the Heart Sutra,
I remember my teacher would always say:

"What is seen is seen, but never pursued.
What is heard is heard, but never pursued.
What is smelled is smelled, but never pursued.
What is tasted is tasted, but never pursued.
What is thought is thought, but never pursued...

 

...The whole point of the dharma is to hone and strengthen the potential you have as a human being. You have the potential to have a good life and to make that good life the basis of goodness for others. If you accidentally bump into something called enlightenment in the bargain, that’s also good. Keep this in mind."

[C T]

Jamgon Mipham on Yogis:

 

Just as food brings growth to the body while delighting and satisfying it, likewise, yogis, through the experience of pleasure free from desire, bring increase to the body of realization. The meaning of this is that yogis play and toy with the objects of their feelings, realizing that the latter have no real existence. The contemplation or meditation on the unreality of feelings, arising from such a rich field of analysis, is the food enjoyed by yogis. Worldly people, on the other hand, race into the objects of their feelings and are lost in them.

 

Pleasure and so on arise by virtue of one’s thoughts. There is no such thing as a sensation that is intrinsically pleasant or otherwise. Therefore to consider that so-called pleasure and pain exist in and of themselves, and to strive purposely to gain the one and avoid the other, is a delusion. 

 

Aside from the imputations of pleasure and pain by the mind itself, there is no such thing as self-subsistent pleasure and pain, whether inside, or outside, the mind. This can be exemplified by the effect of melted butter on a hungry person as compared with someone who is sick and nauseous, or the effect of a heap of manure on a person obsessed with cleanliness as compared with a pig, or the effect of a woman on a lustful man as compared with one who is meditating on the body’s impurities.

 

The remedy for clinging to pleasure and the other feelings as though they were real, and the chains of thoughts connected therewith (wanting this, not wanting that) is to familiarize oneself through meditation to analytical investigation. Apart from this, there is no other antidote to grasping at the supposed reality of feelings, something that convulses the world with a kind of collective insanity. 

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, C T said:

Jamgon Mipham on Yogis:

 

Just as food brings growth to the body while delighting and satisfying it, likewise, yogis, through the experience of pleasure free from desire, bring increase to the body of realization. The meaning of this is that yogis play and toy with the objects of their feelings, realizing that the latter have no real existence. The contemplation or meditation on the unreality of feelings, arising from such a rich field of analysis, is the food enjoyed by yogis. Worldly people, on the other hand, race into the objects of their feelings and are lost in them.

 

 

I understand yogi’s realise they are not their feelings, but do they really believe that feelings are “unreal”/“have no real existence”? This seems like a more Buddhist stance to me. 

 

5 hours ago, C T said:

 

Pleasure and so on arise by virtue of one’s thoughts. There is no such thing as a sensation that is intrinsically pleasant or otherwise. Therefore to consider that so-called pleasure and pain exist in and of themselves, and to strive purposely to gain the one and avoid the other, is a delusion. 

 

Aside from the imputations of pleasure and pain by the mind itself, there is no such thing as self-subsistent pleasure and pain, whether inside, or outside, the mind. This can be exemplified by the effect of melted butter on a hungry person as compared with someone who is sick and nauseous, or the effect of a heap of manure on a person obsessed with cleanliness as compared with a pig, or the effect of a woman on a lustful man as compared with one who is meditating on the body’s impurities.

 

The remedy for clinging to pleasure and the other feelings as though they were real, and the chains of thoughts connected therewith (wanting this, not wanting that) is to familiarize oneself through meditation to analytical investigation. Apart from this, there is no other antidote to grasping at the supposed reality of feelings, something that convulses the world with a kind of collective insanity. 

 

[old3bob]

"May all Beings be happy", which btw is a major saying from the historic Buddha...

[steve]

3 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

I understand yogi’s realise they are not their feelings, but do they really believe that feelings are “unreal”/“have no real existence”? This seems like a more Buddhist stance to me. 

 

 

Jamgon Mipham was a Tibetan Buddhist master and teacher and his words should be seen in that context. The use of the word yogi is widespread in Buddhist circles and synonymous with practitioner, in contrast to the word scholar.

[S:C]

15 minutes ago, steve said:

the word yogi is widespread in Buddhist circles and synonymous with practitioner, in contrast to the word scholar.

So the difference is whether one occupies oneself only intellectually (analytical mind > scholar) with the theories or also with bodily practice (active physical engagement for dissolution of emotions and distortions > practitioner)?

 

And some Buddhist schools, like @stirlings (which btw.?) say mind alone suffices? 

edit: in other words: is there really a difference between scholar and practitioner?

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by schroedingerscat

[steve]

1 hour ago, schroedingerscat said:

So the difference is whether one occupies oneself only intellectually (analytical mind > scholar) with the theories or also with bodily practice (active physical engagement for dissolution of emotions and distortions > practitioner)?

Essentially yes.

 

Quote

And some Buddhist schools, like @stirlings (which btw.?) say mind alone suffices? 

edit: in other words: is there really a difference between scholar and practitioner?

Mind alone does not refer to the conceptual mind. Mind in the sense I believe you are referencing is far more comprehensive than that. There really is a difference between scholar and practitioner. For example, imagine someone who studies taijiquan, reading the classics and perfecting their theoretical knowledge of the art for a decade but never engaging in the physical training. Now imagine someone else who never once opens a book but practices taijiquan daily with a credible teacher for the same amount of time. Do you think the scholar and practitioner will have comparable skill in a pushing hands match? One has mastered the concepts and theory but the other has mastered the art. The scholar has knowledge but the practitioner has expertise, there is a very tangible difference. It is the same with meditation.

[Lairg]

1 hour ago, steve said:

Mind alone does not refer to the conceptual mind.

 

The mind in humans is also a sense organ.   Theoretical physicists are well known for their mental experiments.  For example Einstein recorded his experience of being in the flow of a sunbeam

Edited September 10, 2022 by Lairg

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

So the difference is whether one occupies oneself only intellectually (analytical mind > scholar) with the theories or also with bodily practice (active physical engagement for dissolution of emotions and distortions > practitioner)?

 

And some Buddhist schools, like @stirlings (which btw.?) say mind alone suffices? 

edit: in other words: is there really a difference between scholar and practitioner?

 

 

 

i get the need for dissolution of distortions, but are Buddhist trying to actually terminate/extinguish emotions themselves? 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

So the difference is whether one occupies oneself only intellectually (analytical mind > scholar) with the theories or also with bodily practice (active physical engagement for dissolution of emotions and distortions > practitioner)?

 

And some Buddhist schools, like @stirlings (which btw.?) say mind alone suffices? 

edit: in other words: is there really a difference between scholar and practitioner?

Practice can take a lot of forms. Reading or chanting a sutra can be practice, but could also be considered analytical in some respects. It is a good idea to have some idea of what the philosophical constructs are around the understanding of enlightenment, but it is also any easy place in Western culture to get lost. You are very unlikely to read your way to enlightenment. 

 

My feeling is that the scholar who reads and writes about sunyata is much less likely to recognize that it is present in this moment than the practitioner who regularly rests in it with deep familiarity.

 

I am currently working in Soto Zen. My longer background is in Nyingma/Dzogchen.

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, steve said:

Jamgon Mipham was a Tibetan Buddhist master and teacher and his words should be seen in that context. The use of the word yogi is widespread in Buddhist circles and synonymous with practitioner, in contrast to the word scholar.

Thanks Steve, if he means Buddhist practitioner it makes more sense to me. I was of course thinking Indian yogi. 

[stirling]

1 minute ago, Bindi said:

i get the need for dissolution of distortions, but are Buddhist trying to actually terminate/extinguish emotions themselves? 

 

No. Terminate implies a self that "owns" emotions, or controls them, which doesn't ultimately exist. Emotions don't belong to "us" any more than any other phenomena that arises or passes.

 

If anything emotions are more deeply felt after awakening, though they are not freighted by the iterative thought process that lengthens their stay or causes more intense suffering.

[Bindi]

17 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

No. Terminate implies a self that "owns" emotions, or controls them, which doesn't ultimately exist. Emotions don't belong to "us" any more than any other phenomena that arises or passes.

 

If anything emotions are more deeply felt after awakening, though they are not freighted by the iterative thought process that lengthens their stay or causes more intense suffering.

 I see Jamgon Mipham states that the objects of their feelings have no real existence, though I don’t think it follows that feelings themselves are therefore unreal. I do see his point though that how we respond to something is relative, not intrinsic. 
 

It seems to me that you’re coming at it from a different angle, there is no self therefore no one to own emotions. 
 

I find myself saying “This too shall pass” when I am experiencing an unpleasant emotion, so I’m hooking into the changeable nature of emotions, not the unreality of self or objects. 

[stirling]

54 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 I see Jamgon Mipham states that the objects of their feelings have no real existence, though I don’t think it follows that feelings themselves are therefore unreal. I do see his point though that how we respond to something is relative, not intrinsic. 
 

It seems to me that you’re coming at it from a different angle, there is no self therefore no one to own emotions. 
 

I find myself saying “This too shall pass” when I am experiencing an unpleasant emotion, so I’m hooking into the changeable nature of emotions, not the unreality of self or objects. 

 

I agree with Jamgon Mipham, but I am attempting to demonstrate his point by looking at it from another perspective. The point he is trying to make is that things are empty of intrinsic existence - meaning do not have an existence of their own as separate things. This means that they have a certain "unreality". I am suggesting that, if there is no "self", there is no-one for experiences or objects to belong to. Both are correct - one is looking at things from the  lens of collapsing "space", the other through the lens of the collapsing of "self". 

 

I have also used something along those lines when I am deeply suffering. I have used it as a means to maintain 100% presence in the moment, which tends to minimize suffering. It works! 

[C T]

Jamgon Mipham explains that samsara arises from the confused attitude of clinging to the true existence of things. This confusion is defiled, and that from ignorance, attachment and the rest derive. By understanding the principle of dependent arising, all these defilements are overthrown.

This much is established as being the general Buddhist tradition. In all the sutras and shastras, the label “defiled” is certainly applied time and again to the ignorance of not understanding the suchness of things.

 

Nagarjuna and his heart son Aryadeva have asserted that there is one single and final vehicle established through the wisdom that realizes suchness. Nagarjuna’s Yuktisastika says, “When you accept that things are real, wanting and aversion spring unendingly; Unwholesome views are entertained from which all disputes come.”

Aryadeva’s Catuhsataka says, “Samsara’s seed is consciousness, objects are the field of its activity. If thus you see that in the object there’s no self, samsara’s seed will be arrested.” As said in Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, “To dissipate the veils of ignorance—no other means is there than knowing suchness. Suchness of phenomena admits no fraction or division. The subject, mind, that knows it so is likewise undivided. And thus the Buddha taught us with a single matchless vehicle.”

 

Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara says, “It is a craving that arises through the circumstance of feeling, and feeling, this they surely have. Concepts linger still within their minds; And it is to these concepts that they cling. The mind that has not realized emptiness may yet be halted but will once again arise, just as from a nonperceptual absorption. Therefore one must train in emptiness.

 

(Book: The Wisdom Chapter)

[C T]

Shechen Gyaltsap on Mahamudra and Dzogchen: Milarepa says, “If on the inconceivable you know how you might meditate, the blade of your defilements rusts, its keenness gone (means if one meditates correctly, one’s defilements will lose their power to inflict harm on oneself). But if you think, reflecting overmuch, however you may meditate, you're in delusion’s snare.”

 

As one rests naturally and without any contrivance, without any distraction and without purposefully meditating, in the mind’s fundamental nature, in which appearance and emptiness are inseparably united, one will come to the realization that the mind’s stillness and movement have the same undivided nature. It is the very nature of the mind, luminous and empty, naked and uncontrived; it is coemergent, primordial wisdom. 

 

- Because appearances and the mind are inseparable, as in the example of the water and the moon reflected therein, when manifold phenomena are understood to have the same taste, the path —the meditation of Mahamudra (The Great Seal) is accomplished.

 

Then one watches this uncontrived, fundamental nature (the indivisible union of luminosity and emptiness). When the state of great equality (where neither appearance nor awareness is identifed as such) is determined, not as some kind of inert object but as primordial purity, unborn, aware, and empty, this is the result, the primordial state of openness and freedom. —It is the realization of the Great Perfection (Dzogchen) practice of “cutting through” (Trekcho). 

 

- In the Great Perfection, when one comes to the clear conclusion that the nature of the mind, or awareness, is unborn, one comes directly onto it and consequently there is not much room for intellectual activity and deviation from the fundamental nature. 

[Mark Foote]

"Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential"

A post I completed last week, and I'm anxious to share with all of you--I do think it's relevant:

 

A friend responded to my last post, Not the Wind, Not the Flag:

 

I cannot see the connection to life, cleaning cat boxes, cooking, shopping, driving, bathing and suffering.

 

Let me try to make that connection explicit, here.

 

Gautama the Buddha said that he returned to “that first characteristic of concentration in which I ever constantly abide” after he lectured, and that first characteristic is likely to be “one-pointedness of mind”, as I described it in “Not the Wind, Not the Flag”.  “One-pointedness of mind” does seem like something one could strive to take into everyday life. However, although Gautama implied that he returned to “one-pointedness of mind” after he spoke, he nonetheless described the initial concentration as a state wherein thought is “applied and sustained”.

 

Thought “applied and sustained” is seldom mentioned in Buddhist teaching these days. Zen teachers mostly recommend that beginning meditators focus on the breath in or out, and they will sometimes advise counting the breaths as a method to calm the mind.  So far as I know, Zen teachers never recommend that thoughts be “applied and sustained”. Even the Theravadin Buddhist teachers of Southeast Asia, who follow the teachings of Gautama’s sermons more closely, don’t recommend “thought applied and sustained” to their students–instead, they emphasize something along the lines of the “bare attention” now taught in the West as the practice of mindfulness.

 

A central theme of Gautama’s teaching was the cessation of “determinate thought” (AN III 414) in action, meaning the cessation of the exercise of will or volition in action.  A cessation of the exercise of will could be attained, said Gautama, through the induction of various successive states of concentration. As to the initial induction of concentration, Gautama declared that “making self-surrender the object of thought, one lays hold of concentration, one lays hold of one-pointedness of mind”.

 

I begin with making the surrender of volition in activity related to the movement of breath the object of thought.  For me, that necessitates thought applied and sustained with regard to relaxation of the activity of the body, with regard to the exercise of calm in the stretch of ligaments, with regard to the detachment of mind, and with regard to the presence of mind.  I find that a presence of mind from one breath to the next can precipitate “one-pointedness of mind”, but laying hold of “one-pointedness of mind” requires a surrender of willful activity in the body much like falling asleep.

 

It’s possible to experience “one-pointedness of mind” and the movement of “one-pointed” mind in the body without experiencing a freedom of that movement in full.  I’ve written about the analogies Gautama provided for the cultivation of “one-pointedness of mind” (The Early Record), and I would say that it’s only in the concentration where the body is suffused with “purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind” that the mind really moves freely. Gautama pointed out that with that concentration, “determinate thought” in action of the body ceases, in particular volition that affects the movement of inhalation or exhalation ceases.

 

That doesn’t mean that action of the body can’t take place, only that the exercise of will or volition is not involved.  I have many times quoted a remark I heard Zen teacher Kobun Chino Otogawa make at the end of one of his lectures at the San Francisco Zen Center:

 

You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around.

 

If a person “takes the attitude of someone who… lets go of both hands and feet” (as Dogen instructed), then perhaps there will come a moment when the hands and feet walk around.  At that moment, there will be new meaning to be had in cleaning cat boxes, cooking, shopping, driving, and bathing, though these experiences might not involve the attitude that advances from the top of a 100-foot pole throughout.

 

Having said that, I have to add that it’s my belief that not every Zen teacher has experienced the zazen that gets up and walks around.  That doesn’t say that they haven’t experienced the cessation of volition in action of the body, or that they are not qualified to teach Zen, but I think they must have a different perspective on the relationship of practice to the actions of everyday life.

 

To be clear, the cessation of volition in the action of the body is not the experience Gautama associated with his enlightenment–that would be the cessation of volition in the action of the mind, in “feeling and perceiving”.  Having attained to the “cessation of feeling and perceiving”, Gautama saw for himself that suffering is the last link in a chain of cause and effect, and his insight into the nature of suffering was his enlightenment.

 

In one of his declensions of the cause and effect of suffering, Gautama spoke of how consciousness comes to be “stationed” as a result of “that which we will”, and how that “station of consciousness” gives rise to “this mass of ill”:

 

That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.

 

Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.

 

But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.

 

(SN II 65, Pali Text Society SN Vol II pg 45)

 

 

It’s my belief that the mind that moves is the opposite of “a station of consciousness”.

 

“Birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair”—in some of his lectures, Gautama summarized “this entire mass of ill” by saying “in short, the five groups of grasping”.  Grasping after a sense of self in connection with phenomena of form, feeling, mind, habitual tendency, or mental state is identically suffering, according to Gautama.

 

I’m not sure that most people would agree with Gautama, that grasping after a sense of self is suffering.  I think most people see suffering as something that takes place in connection with pain.

 

There are at least two sermons where disciples of Gautama paid a visit to some member of the order who was seriously ill, because that member of the order intended to “take the knife” (commit suicide).  I believe the disciples were unable to dissuade the ill individual from taking the knife, even though all involved were well-versed in the teaching.  My guess is that lacking Gautama’s experience, both with the endurance of pain and with the surrender of volition, few can avoid the grasping associated with the desire to avoid pain.

 

People also suffer from the failure to get the things that they desire in everyday life, things other than the relief of pain.  Maybe that’s the kind of suffering my friend meant to imply when she said, “cleaning cat boxes, cooking, shopping, driving, bathing, and suffering”.  I find relief from that kind of suffering in “making self-surrender the object of thought”, and as I’ve explained, for me that entails making the cessation of volitive action the object of my thought.  I believe my friend also finds relief from suffering in “making self-surrender the object of thought”, but for her that has to do with good works.

 

I hope I can say that my friend and I share a belief in the efficacy of selfless action in the relief of suffering, although I have yet to adequately explain to her how letting go of volition can result in action.

 

It’s impossible to teach the meaning of sitting. You won’t believe it. Not because I say something wrong, but until you experience it and confirm it by yourself, you cannot believe it.

 

(Kobun Chino Otogawa, “Embracing Mind”, edited by Cosgrove & Hall, pg 48)
 

(post, Response to "Not the Wind, Not the Flag")

 

To see, recognize, and maintain an enlightening potential:

 

Find the seat and put on the robe, and afterward see for yourself.

 

(Zen Letters, Teachings of Yuanwu, translated by J.C. Cleary and Thomas Cleary, pg. 65, ©1994 by J. C. Cleary and Thomas Cleary)

[C T]

[Lairg]

It may be that the mind is a complex sense organ - that can be used for awareness of and interaction with entities operating on the mental plane.

 

Mind can also transmit spiritual intent into mental and lower planes - in which mode, one pointedness is critical.

[Mark Foote]

Longchenpa's got it rolling!

How I start the log going:

 

"For me, that necessitates thought applied and sustained with regard to relaxation of the activity of the body, with regard to the exercise of calm in the stretch of ligaments, with regard to the detachment of mind, and with regard to the presence of mind."

(Response to "Not the Wind, Not the Flag")
 

The trick in arriving at detachment of mind, in my experience, is to appreciate the action of the mind.  Maybe that's what you're driving at, Lairg.

In Gautama's way of living, detaching the mind was followed by the reflection on impermanence, or "beholding impermanence".  Gautama described the reflection this way:

 

Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”

 

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68)

 

My take is that "perfect wisdom" comes out of the happiness when mindfulness rolls, and I can realize the utility of "this am I not, this is not my self" in the detachment of mind and the experience of equanimity.

With equanimity, action of the body with consciousness but without intention may occur, something Dogen described as the actualization of the inconceivable:
 

Dogen wrote in “Genjo Koan”:

 

Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent.

 

(Dogen, “Genjo Koan” tr. Tanahashi/Aitken)

 

When “zazen gets up and walks around”, the action takes place without any intention to act–it’s completely out of the blue, and the source of the action is not apparent.

 

I will say that over the years, I’ve discovered that action without any intention can also follow from something I believe with all my heart. If the initial impulse to act on a heart-felt belief is restrained, the heart-felt belief can wind up moving me from the same place as “the inconceivable”, without any intention.

 

For the most part, it seems more straightforward not to restrain an impulse to act from heart-felt belief, but rather to simply “eat when hungry, sleep when tired”. That’s presuming “the inconceivable” doesn’t intervene (sometimes it does).

 

          (Moving from the Source)

 

[manitou]

On 8/10/2022 at 9:38 AM, C T said:

The third fuel is having a good relationship with your sexual energy - in other words, sex is seen as holy, instead of sinful and dirty. To have a negative relationship with these fuels means to keep your body ‘cold’.

 

 

I grew up with a horrible sense of my sexuality - imposed on my by my folks, and acted out and self-imposed in various ways in the ensuing years.  I was never able to see sex as anything but sinful and dirty, and this remained with me throughout adulthood.  It was only when I had several experiences of tantric sex with my husband  that I realized that sex isn't dirty or cause for humiliation or embarassment.  I finally got to experience sex as it should be experienced - without shame, without self judgment.

 

On 8/10/2022 at 9:38 AM, C T said:

The second fuel is to love the opposite sex, or the same sex, if that is your cup of tea.

 

It is wonderful that the Rinpoche quoted by CT refers to sex as the second fuel.  On one hand, it elevates the status of sex to something of importance, as opposed to my previous fear and contempt for it.  In my experience, that thing which 'we are' wants nothing more than a sensory experience in this lifetime!  That includes all of it, free of judgment.  We can honor it's desire by being true to our feelings, our desires.  This is why we are apparently nothing much more than a big sensory skin bag.  Maybe Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, after all.

 

Trying to become good, or holy, or enlightened?  It seems silly now.  Realizing our true nature is apparently all it really wants of us (which to me, begs the question "Why??")  Just because, I guess.  Enjoy the ride.  Knowing that all of this is just one big head trip is SO COMFORTING!  Especially with the condition of the planet at this time; the chaos, the climate change due to our own cravings for More.

 

@CT - I do believe I have finally answered my own question on the Budhalands referred to in the Lotus and Avatamsaka sutras.  I know I've posed this question several times on this forum.  I do now understand that they are the lands of all the possibilities we didn't take, or decisions we didn't make.  As atoms in the physical world break apart and knock each other around and cling together, so do the quantum possibilities.  As above, so below.  A decision made has the alternate road built into it, and I do believe that the alternate road not taken branches into its own pathway of cause and effect.  A Budhaland created!  As it says in the DDJ, the earth is patterned after the universe, man is patterned after the earth.  Atoms = possibilities.

[C T]

[C T]

[steve]

One of the many benefits of prostrations!

😁