Jonesboy

Merging and guru yoga

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

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

 

As forestofemptiness mentioned, you're mixing quotes and concepts from different sects and schools - not very helpful.

Better to focus on one school if you're interested in consistency and continuity.

We're discussing Guru Yoga, something that does not exist in many of the sources you are quoting. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

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...

 

This is a wrong view in Dzogchen.

The 21 Nails is a core teaching in Bon Dzogchen.

It used to be highly secretive but is now often offered publicly and has been published.

The first Nail distinguishes the characteristics of mind and the Nature of Mind (or Essence).

Thinking is a characteristic of mind.

It is not a characteristic of the mind's Nature.

A critical step in Dzogchen practice is distinguishing between the mind and the Nature of Mind.

This is one important distinction between the two.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

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

 

To you and me yes, but when a Dzogchen Master uses the word "clarity" they are generally referring to a very precise definition, not to any and all meanings of the English word. If you substitute with one of the "many aspects" of clarity you completely change the meaning of Norbu's statement to suit your own bias.  It's important to have the context when interpreting Buddhist scripture and commentary as was mentioned earlier.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

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

 

The mind is thinking, that is its nature (not referring to the Nature of Mind, just to the mind's tendency).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

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

 

 

These are designations, definitions, and understandings from the outside looking in.

 

And what @forestofemptiness refers to regarding the different way terms are used in different schools seems to also apply here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, there is no separation between the ground and the thought itself. Any such perceived separation is an illusion of the mind itself. Just like when people think that meditation is somehow different than normal daily living, it is not, just a perceived illusion of different “states”. 

 

The difference is not so much between the "ground and the thought itself" but rather has more to do with our relationship to the ground and thought. Similarly, there is a distinct difference between meditation and "normal daily living" otherwise we would all be enlightened. That is not my observation. Normal daily living can be experienced in a meditative state or a non-meditative state but the two are not equivalent for most of us, other than in theory - that is a projection of mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, there is no separation between the ground and the thought itself. Any such perceived separation is an illusion of the mind itself. Just like when people think that meditation is somehow different than normal daily living, it is not, just a perceived illusion of different “states”. 

 

This sounds so very wise, who could possibly argue it, and yet it can also be quite misleading, and in fact stagnating - able to perpetuate and prop up the illusion it purports to dismantle. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

This sounds so very wise, who could possibly argue it, and yet it can also be quite misleading, and in fact stagnating - able to perpetuate and prop up the illusion it purports to dismantle. 

 

 

 

Sorry, but what does that mean?  What do you consider quite misleading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jonesboy this morning you perceived a statement made to another was directed at you.. for the moment we're going to use this as an example of "normal daily living"  (only for illustrative purposes as it is a readily available and observable).

 

In equipoise (what is sometimes called "true meditation" - as a means of precision in language and not meant as negation of the practices meant to prepare one for the experience of true meditation), this simple misunderstanding would not have occurred, as it was dependent on the concept of a "Jonesboy" who needed to protect himself from assertions not leveled at him.

 

This powerfully highlights the ability of our minds to create our perceived "reality".

 

And if you, with all the time you've put into study could soo easily and readily stumble into what can clearly be ascribed "illusion" in everyday life... what do you believe the experience of others would be?

 

Again, this is only illustrative and not intended as pejorative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steve said:

 

The difference is not so much between the "ground and the thought itself" but rather has more to do with our relationship to the ground and thought. Similarly, there is a distinct difference between meditation and "normal daily living" otherwise we would all be enlightened. That is not my observation. Normal daily living can be experienced in a meditative state or a non-meditative state but the two are not equivalent for most of us, other than in theory - that is a projection of mind.

 

How is "our relationship to the ground and thought", different than the "ground and thought itself"? You are all of it.  The perceived difference (or separation) is why there is a difference between meditation and normal daily living.  And, I would agree that once they are the same, that would be the classical definition of being enlightened in most traditions. But, that is really just a starting point beyond the local body mind in a tradition like Kashmir Shaivism (and others).  That next phase is the fundamental difference of KS and more classical hindu traditions.  In Taoism, it is the difference from going from being a "stream of the universe" to becoming a "valley of the universe" (as found in the TTC chapter 28).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

@Jonesboy this morning you perceived a statement made to another was directed at you.. for the moment we're going to use this as an example of "normal daily living"  (only for illustrative purposes as it is a readily available and observable).

 

In equipoise (what is sometimes called "true meditation" - as a means of precision in language and not meant as negation of the practices meant to prepare one for the experience of true meditation), this simple misunderstanding would not have occurred, as it was dependent on the concept of a "Jonesboy" who needed to protect himself from assertions not leveled at him.

 

This powerfully highlights the ability of our minds to create our perceived "reality".

 

And if you, with all the time you've put into study could soo easily and readily stumble into what can clearly be ascribed "illusion" in everyday life... what do you believe the experience of others would be?

 

Again, this is only illustrative and not intended as pejorative.

 

Sorry, but now I am even more confused.  Was this made as a response to me, or some response to some old interaction with Jonesboy? Your use of my phrase of "normal daily living" implies it might have been, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Sorry, but now I am even more confused.  Was this made as a response to me, or some response to some old interaction with Jonesboy? Your use of my phrase of "normal daily living" implies it might have been, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I was writing this to Jonesboy (as indicated by my tagging him and speaking to him directly) when you asked your questions, and, as such it chronologically appeared after your questions, although it was not intended as response to your questions.

 

As for your questions themselves:

 

28 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Sorry, but what does that mean?  What do you consider quite misleading?

 

Did you spend any time contemplating what was written, or immediately question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steve said:

 

The difference is not so much between the "ground and the thought itself" but rather has more to do with our relationship to the ground and thought. Similarly, there is a distinct difference between meditation and "normal daily living" otherwise we would all be enlightened. That is not my observation. Normal daily living can be experienced in a meditative state or a non-meditative state but the two are not equivalent for most of us, other than in theory - that is a projection of mind.

Sorry if I'm adding cross-talk, here. 

 

The biggest hurdle to "enlightenment" is the belief that "I am not enlightened" (or in the case of the buddhist, "Not I is not enlightened"). :)  (yeah I know this gets many folks riled up and up in arms and what have you...) 

 

Really the difference to me is like "ocean and waves". The ground is the ocean and the thoughts are the waves. It is a matter of identification. Which in turn is a result of the chronic patterns of thoughts that have been allowed to develop. 

 

All difference of traditions aside, the process really is the same across the board -- 3 steps, from a practical perspective. 

  1. Realize that you are not your body, mind/thoughts, emotions and feelings. That gives us the ability to strip away the habit forming parts little by little.
  2. Realize that thoughts, emotions, feelings (aka mind) and the body arise in you ("not you" if it makes one feel better).
  3. Realize that you were already and always the empty ground/essence of knowing and being, and that everything is already of your own nature (empty), and hence not different/not separate from you.

That which knows that normal daily living is being experienced in a meditative on one day and a non-meditative state on another, is that ground of awareness/clear light/Dao (etc etc). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

I was writing this to Jonesboy (as indicated by my tagging him and speaking to him directly) when you asked your questions, and, as such it chronologically appeared after your questions, although it was not intended as response to your questions.

 

As for your questions themselves:

 

 

Did you spend any time contemplating what was written, or immediately question?

 

I did not understand what you meant, so I specifically asked for clarification.  Nothing to contemplate in the absence of thought.  Simply reside. 

 

Now Steve did post something to contemplate (and I did), and responded. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Sorry if I'm adding cross-talk, here. 

 

The biggest hurdle to "enlightenment" is the belief that "I am not enlightened" (or in the case of the buddhist, "Not I is not enlightened"). :)  (yeah I know this gets many folks riled up and up in arms and what have you...) 

 

Really the difference to me is like "ocean and waves". The ground is the ocean and the thoughts are the waves. It is a matter of identification. Which in turn is a result of the chronic patterns of thoughts that have been allowed to develop. 

 

All difference of traditions aside, the process really is the same across the board -- 3 steps, from a practical perspective. 

  1. Realize that you are not your body, mind/thoughts, emotions and feelings. That gives us the ability to strip away the habit forming parts little by little.
  2. Realize that thoughts, emotions, feelings (aka mind) and the body arise in you ("not you" if it makes one feel better).
  3. Realize that you were already and always the empty ground/essence of knowing and being, and that everything is already of your own nature (empty), and hence not different/not separate from you.

That which knows that normal daily living is being experienced in a meditative on one day and a non-meditative state on another, is that ground of awareness/clear light/Dao (etc etc). 

 

This part of 3 was really my point.... that everything is already of your own nature (empty), and hence not different/not separate from you.

 

Or, all such perceived separation is simply an illusion of mind. Cut through it and then you are at what I would call that first stage (or what many traditions call enlightenment).

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

@Jonesboy this morning you perceived a statement made to another was directed at you.. for the moment we're going to use this as an example of "normal daily living"  (only for illustrative purposes as it is a readily available and observable).

 

In equipoise (what is sometimes called "true meditation" - as a means of precision in language and not meant as negation of the practices meant to prepare one for the experience of true meditation), this simple misunderstanding would not have occurred, as it was dependent on the concept of a "Jonesboy" who needed to protect himself from assertions not leveled at him.

 

This powerfully highlights the ability of our minds to create our perceived "reality".

 

And if you, with all the time you've put into study could soo easily and readily stumble into what can clearly be ascribed "illusion" in everyday life... what do you believe the experience of others would be?

 

Again, this is only illustrative and not intended as pejorative.

 

Wanted to express my thoughts on this, if it's okay.  What happened, like a slip in memory or wrong association by the intellect has nothing to do with true meditation in my humble opinion.  The perceived reality is not only true and valid at all times from the perspective of the mind, it is essential to function at practical levels in the world.  All of this has nothing to do with true meditation or state of just residing in the energy or light.

 

The memory and intellect are components of the mind.  Such things can and will happen to anyone including a Buddha and not indicative of loss of equipoise in my view.  For instance everyone including fully realized Buddha will grow older and age and have corresponding cognitive decline but this cannot be taken as a measure of true meditation or lack of equipoise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, there is no separation between the ground and the thought itself. Any such perceived separation is an illusion of the mind itself. Just like when people think that meditation is somehow different than normal daily living, it is not, just a perceived illusion of different “states”. 

 

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

This sounds so very wise, who could possibly argue it, and yet it can also be quite misleading, and in fact stagnating - able to perpetuate and prop up the illusion it purports to dismantle. 

 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Sorry, but what does that mean?  What do you consider quite misleading?

 

Quote

Did you spend any time contemplating what was written, or immediately question?

 

29 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I did not understand what you meant, so I specifically asked for clarification.  Nothing to contemplate in the absence of thought.  Simply reside. 

 

Now Steve did post something to contemplate (and I did), and responded. :) 

 

Put it all together because things quickly become quite messy in our interactions. And your most recent response highlighted this for me.

 

The statements you initially made, and how they could be understood and applied is the focus. 

 

If "the goal" of buddhism is liberation, how would presenting meditation as no different than "normal everyday living" assist one in realizing the goal?  Where is the "cutting through"? And do you understand how this could lead to (what becomes nothing more than) an idea of liberation, and spiritual materialism? It can be "hollow", in name only, and a game of the ego.

 

There is a pitfall of potential complacency in what you presented, and the manner in which you presented it.

 

In everyday life people may have experiences of equipoise, and on the cushion people may fluctuate between equipose and post-equipoise. And even you understand this, or you wouldn't work with people in the manner you do, and with the intent you have. To say there is no difference seems to negate the purpose and perceived effectiveness of your practices with others. If there is "no difference" then there is nothing to be shown, and no reason to attempt the showing.

Edited by ilumairen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would like to help explain what a fully realised Buddha means? :P

I mean, please illuminate with your understanding what the scope of full realization entails?

Anyone? 

 

Frankly, I really cannot even begin to fathom the magnitude of that sort of imaginative, fantastical fruition. 

Another point to consider is the usefulness of such an examination.

Its like reading up a brochure about Disneyland and telling others the wonders of the place. 

Just go and experience the wonder,

and then maybe realize its all a dream-like creation to induce a temporarily euphoric state. 

But that may just explain its attraction, doesn't it? 

 

As someone once aptly proclaimed, enlightenment is nothing; delusion is everything. 

The sweet spot of Non-distraction, i think, lies somewhere in between. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Wanted to express my thoughts on this, if it's okay.

 

Of course it's ok.

 

26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 What happened, like a slip in memory or wrong association by the intellect has nothing to do with true meditation in my humble opinion.

 

Please keep in mind "true meditation" is one of those pesky phrases with very clear meaning, and in this you're correct, memory and intellect play no part, and are an indication one has "entered" "post-equipoise", and in this were intended to illustrate "normal everyday living" is not synonymous or the same as equipoise or "true meditation".

 

26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

 The perceived reality is not only true and valid at all times from the perspective of the mind, it is essential to function at practical levels in the world.  All of this has nothing to do with true meditation or state of just residing in the energy or light.

 

What your referring to is the mind's belief in the truth of it's creation.. and is addressed with the phrase "valid cognition".. what we were looking at as an example would not be valid cognition, because other humans would not have perceived the same occurance when viewing the words on the screen.. it was faulty perception, and firmly samsaric - again indicating a difference between "normal everyday living" and equipoise or true meditation.

 

26 minutes ago, s1va said:

The memory and intellect are components of the mind.

 

Yes.

 

26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 Such things can and will happen to anyone including a Buddha and not indicative of loss of equipoise in my view.

 

There isn't reification in equipoise, so how would such happen?

 

26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 For instance everyone including fully realized Buddha will grow older and age and have corresponding cognitive decline but this cannot be taken as a measure of true meditation or lack of equipoise.

 

C.T.'s post regarding Disneyland has arrived since I started typing a reply, and while I'll leave what's already been written, I think at this point I'll follow his lead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

What your referring to is the mind's belief in the truth of it's creation.. and is addressed with the phrase "valid cognition".. what we were looking at as an example would not be valid cognition, because other humans would not have perceived the same occurance when viewing the words on the screen.. it was faulty perception, and firmly samsaric - again indicating a difference between "normal everyday living" and equipoise or true meditation.

 

Even after one attains equipoise the separate individual perception continues at least until the death of the physical body potentially even afterwards as a light or formless being, like Buddhas and deities.  At least this is my understanding and experience in connecting and merging.  Since they exist as a light being, we are able to connect and merge.  This separation as a sentient being and the perception of individual separation at practical aspects level has no bearing on state of just residing or equipoise.

 

When Gautama Buddha lived after his full realization of emptiness (as claimed by him and accepted by me and several others 🙂), he was still subject to human frailities and old age as described in historical accounts and Buddhist sutra from observations. There are many interesting stories, discussion and observations as documented by his immediate disciples.  At one point Buddha makes certain statements which almost sound like grief at the passing away of one of his disciples.  Not only was he in his separate individual perception, most encounters documented are samsaric at practical levels.  In my mind there is no doubt that Gautama Buddha ever lost equipoise because of such perception or interaction.

 

--------

 

On CTs post about Buddha and realization, my mention was just to point out ageing, memory and cognitive decline happens to everyone including Buddhas as observed historically with Gautama Buddha and as documented in Sutras.  Nothing really exploring into Buddhas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disneyland is such an alluring theme park... 

Such a fab variety of characters everywhere

And kids think they're ALL real 

Some even want to merge with the characters

 

:lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is real relatively and at practical levels.  If someone were to go in front of the train in Disney Magic kingdom saying this is not real, just a character train.  Well, they can experiment by stepping on the tracks and in front of the train and finding out what is universally ‘real’ at practical level in the world.  In the meantime each one of our reality is real to us with respect to connecting and merging with deities, Buddhas or other beings of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, s1va said:

Everything is real relatively and at practical levels.  If someone were to go in front of the train in Disney Magic kingdom saying this is not real, just a character train.  Well, they can experiment by stepping on the tracks and in front of the train and finding out what is universally ‘real’ at practical level in the world.  In the meantime each one of our reality is real to us with respect to connecting and merging with deities, Buddhas or other beings of light.

 

What fabulous misunderstanding and misrepresentation, for the sake of propping up one's own beliefs. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:yawn:

 

This has become rather uninteresting.. enjoy your rides, and see y'all later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

Put it all together because things quickly become quite messy in our interactions. And your most recent response highlighted this for me.

 

The statements you initially made, and how they could be understood and applied is the focus. 

 

If "the goal" of buddhism is liberation, how would presenting meditation as no different than "normal everyday living" assist one in realizing the goal?  Where is the "cutting through"? And do you understand how this could lead to (what becomes nothing more than) an idea of liberation, and spiritual materialism? It can be "hollow", in name only, and a game of the ego.

 

There is a pitfall of potential complacency in what you presented, and the manner in which you presented it.

 

In everyday life people may have experiences of equipoise, and on the cushion people may fluctuate between equipose and post-equipoise. And even you understand this, or you wouldn't work with people in the manner you do, and with the intent you have. To say there is no difference seems to negate the purpose and perceived effectiveness of your practices with others. If there is "no difference" then there is nothing to be shown, and no reason to attempt the showing.

 

Ok, now I understand.  You are talking about the "goal of buddhism".  Yes, I totally agree that I have not been talking about buddhism.  This topic is about merging and guru yoga, so if you are only talking about a buddhist framework, then it would probably not work that way.  But, if you read my earlier response to Steve's comment, I am talking about other traditions where it does fit and make sense.

 

Is not the goal of buddhism to not eliminate the difference between states of meditation and normal daily living?  Make them all the same.  Or after you realize your goal, are there still all of the separated states of mind where you go into and out of meditation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

What fabulous misunderstanding and misrepresentation, for the sake of propping up one's own beliefs. 

 

 

You used the word 'belief'.  That shows it is individual and there can be differences based on each person's perception.  All of us are unique.  Questioning another person's belief based on their experiences is a futile exercise.  This is the point I was trying to make on CT's post.

 

I may think of someone else's belief from their experiences as misunderstanding and misrepresentation.  That will just be my opinion.  Thanks for the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, s1va said:

Everything is real relatively and at practical levels.  If someone were to go in front of the train in Disney Magic kingdom saying this is not real, just a character train.  Well, they can experiment by stepping on the tracks and in front of the train and finding out what is universally ‘real’ at practical level in the world.  In the meantime each one of our reality is real to us with respect to connecting and merging with deities, Buddhas or other beings of light.

 

Thats how accidents become unavoidable :D

In the realm of spiritual pursuits, Enough people collide with imaginary trains too.

Evidently, TDB's a place replete with eg. of such mishaps. 

 

Everything may be relative, but real is kinda subjective, don't you agree, sir? 

Your last sentence seems to suggest agreement.... although its not clear how the relationship 

between individual realities and merging is formed. Care to elaborate a bit?

 

Appreciate the sharing of ideas! _/\_ 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites