Tantra...

[dwai]

20 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

 

Looking back over this reply there is allot of stuff in here that must be explained from the perspective of experience with the India originated practice of Tummo.

 

What has been shared here in particular is certainly possible but the whole point of the practice is to use the pleasure to achieve one pointed absorption where all sensation of any kind ceases as the mind which is required to interpret pleasure ceases as well.

In my experience, single pointedness only comes from the yogic method of pratyahara (sense withdrawal)  followed by dharana (concentration on an object of meditation). Sensory experiences can be a hurdle in the path of attaining single-pointedness. I've seen this both from the Yogic as well as the Taoist meditation perspective. 

20 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

If someone is going into these orgasm X 1000,000 it is because they have lost control of the practice of Tummo and failed to return from the Jewel tip chakra and the secret chakra back to the field where the flame is held. The energy must be returned here and allowed to further feed the flame so the Bindu Drops will melt. 

I found that there is a "kill-switch" (i'm not sure how else to describe it), which is a mental thing really. As the energy swells and builds up, literally sending wave after wave of pleasure through the body, by switching to witness mode instead of experiencer mode, the energy gets transmuted into something far more powerful than sexual energy. The hard part is to let go of the experiencer mode. It is so ingrained in us, and the drive for gratification is so high, that it is hard to do so. However, after being able to do this one time, it can easily be repeated, and eventually it becomes the natural thing.

20 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

 

I have purposely experimented with this error in application to see what was possible and it is most certainly a side track and a failure in the actual practice.

 

To do this is the very definition of pleasure seeking. 

+1

20 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

 

To use pleasure as a vehicle of one pointed absorption requires not only a degree of development and maturity but familiarity with what follows as the basis for doing so in the first place.

 

Exactly.  I do not care for the term grounded. I prefer abides or identifies in pure awareness to a greater degree not a perfect degree just more predominant than personality and mental identities because  its the very trans-formative nature of such practices that render the Personality / Mental Identities less and less as the place from which one resides over time.

Yes. It becomes the natural space eventually. 

20 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

 

 

Agreed pleasure seeking leads to failure of the practice.

[ilumairen]

20 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

Thanks. What does "form is empty" mean exactly ?

 

I have an aversion to the word exactly, and generally when I see it I wish to walk away, and when I use it generally means the person I'm responding to would be best served by walking away. 

 

But.. it basically means whatever object you see is dependent in it's arising and impermanent. Pick something, and explore it for yourself - see if you can separate a thing from emptiness. 

[Fa Xin]

2 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

I have an aversion to the word exactly, and generally when I see it I wish to walk away, and when I use it generally means the person I'm responding to would be best served by walking away. 

 

But.. it basically means whatever object you see is dependent in it's arising and impermanent. Pick something, and explore it for yourself - see if you can separate a thing from emptiness. 

 

I've seen it said a lot, but never really got a good description of what it meant - hence why I said "exactly"

 

I'm glad you chose not to walk away though. Thanks!

[Fa Xin]

17 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

But.. it basically means whatever object you see is dependent in it's arising and impermanent. Pick something, and explore it for yourself - see if you can separate a thing from emptiness. 

 

For me, emptiness is more the unmanifest potential of things.  It's not nothing and it's not something.  Things spring up from it, and return to it.  Like if you follow your thoughts back to their source, it seemingly comes from a void.  So I can see the impermanent...

 

As far as dependent origination, though, that is different than emptiness, at least in my view.

 

Either way, I find it hard to see things as "empty".  I am still learning and growing, though.

[Pilgrim]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Well, I just feel that tantra does not abstract the symbol of a thing from a thing.  Of course emptiness/bliss is not a dancing girl, but on the other hand the dancing girl is emptiness/bliss.  If you see what I mean.

Well now that just reminded me of a twisty song...  sung by Edie Brickel

 

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy is a talk on cereal box religion
Is a smile on a dog

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what?

I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy is a walk on slippery rocks religion
Is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean

Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what

 

 

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Well now that just reminded me of a twisty song...  sung by Edie Brickel

 

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy is a talk on cereal box religion
Is a smile on a dog

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what?

I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy is a walk on slippery rocks religion
Is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things I know what I know if you know what I mean

Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what

 

 

 

 

Nice song.  What I'm saying is not philosophical at all.  

[Pilgrim]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

Nice song.  What I'm saying is not philosophical at all.  

Did not mean to imply that it was.  Just the oh what is the right term...  The way the words flow.  Mostly this part but included the rest to keep the song whole. 

 

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean

 

That is such a great line.

[ilumairen]

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

It "appears" (or has form), but is easily erases (like with any blackboard).

 

The blackboard (as expressed in Heart Essence of the Khandro) is a reference to a particular type of consciousness called Kunzhi Namshe, and the drawings on the blackboard are like a storehouse of karmic traces. Sutra and Tantra are said to leave "traces" while in Dzogchen the Kunzhi Namthe liberates into empty nature, and the blackboard no longer exists. 

 

And in this opening exploration in the book I just cited, the traces on the blackboard are understood to be difficult to remove, although easy to explain. 

 

The only other reference to a chalkboard I'm presently recalling was something from Norbu, although at the moment I'm not 100% on which book it was in. Do you know?

 

: momentarily curious about the analogy :

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

The blackboard (as expressed in Heart Essence of the Khandro) is a reference to a particular type of consciousness called Kunzhi Namshe, and the drawings on the blackboard are like a storehouse of karmic traces. Sutra and Tantra are said to leave "traces" while in Dzogchen the Kunzhi Namthe liberates into empty nature, and the blackboard no longer exists. 

 

And in this opening exploration in the book I just cited, the traces on the blackboard are understood to be difficult to remove, although easy to explain. 

 

The only other reference to a chalkboard I'm presently recalling was something from Norbu, although at the moment I'm not 100% on which book it was in. Do you know?

 

: momentarily curious about the analogy :

 

The blackboard is an analogy and not meant as a particular type of consciousness.  But, you point out the challenge with using words/books to try to discuss these topics. Your meaning easily becomes different than my meaning.  That is why I always advocate directly sharing, so that one “knows” what in mean. 

[ilumairen]

3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

The blackboard is an analogy and not meant as a particular type of consciousness.  But, you point out the challenge with using words/books to try to discuss these topics. Your meaning easily becomes different than my meaning.  That is why I always advocate directly sharing, so that one “knows” what in mean. 

 

Oi vey.

 

You didn't come up with the analogy, and I'm pretty sure @Jonesboy shared the Norbu quote I was looking for somewhere around here, or at least referenced it.

 

Are you aware of which book it is in?

 

And yes, I understand you didn't mean the analogy as a reference to a particular kind of consciousness, and at the same time I'd like to understand the analogy as it has been presented by past masters - and come to be something of a "collective understanding" - or at least lend itself to (assumption of) such.

[Jeff]

52 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Oi vey.

 

You didn't come up with the analogy, and I'm pretty sure @Jonesboy shared the Norbu quote I was looking for somewhere around here, or at least referenced it.

 

Are you aware of which book it is in?

 

And yes, I understand you didn't mean the analogy as a reference to a particular kind of consciousness, and at the same time I'd like to understand the analogy as it has been presented by past masters - and come to be something of a "collective understanding" - or at least lend itself to (assumption of) such.

 

Ok vey... back to you

 

You are remembering and quoting some Norbu analogy, but I am not. My views are not the same as Norbu (though I respect much of his teachings). I have been using the blackboard analogy for many years in discussions at the taobums.  Here is an example of it and how i use it from my old thread from 2015...

 

 

Norbu and (more broadly) Dzogchen has a different view than mine, and with the difference the underlying nature (and relative potential) of tantra are different. My views are much closer to those found in the Tao Te Ching.

 

[Apech]

59 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

The blackboard (as expressed in Heart Essence of the Khandro) is a reference to a particular type of consciousness called Kunzhi Namshe, and the drawings on the blackboard are like a storehouse of karmic traces. Sutra and Tantra are said to leave "traces" while in Dzogchen the Kunzhi Namthe liberates into empty nature, and the blackboard no longer exists. 

 

And in this opening exploration in the book I just cited, the traces on the blackboard are understood to be difficult to remove, although easy to explain. 

 

The only other reference to a chalkboard I'm presently recalling was something from Norbu, although at the moment I'm not 100% on which book it was in. Do you know?

 

: momentarily curious about the analogy :

 

I think the Kunzhi Namshe is comparable but different to the Cittamatra alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness) which holds the seed of karmic actions - and is the basis of rebirth and memory of course.

 

If instead of blackboard and chalk you were to say Mind and content (thought, feeling, perception) then you would also be able to say that not only the content is empty (of self) but also the Mind is empty.  It's not that the blackboard is empty and the chalk exists (even if temporarily) - which would make the blackboard like the 'void' - empty of form but full of creative potential - the plenum - but Buddhism would say that the arising and ceasing of content is just movement in the natural state and is not other than the natural state, in the non-dual realisation the difference between the experiencer and the experience, subject / object is seen to be a mistake.

 

The other confusing notion is of the primordial mind/state as if this is something beyond or transcending - or even worse some prior state of being which was before we became confused by our dualistic perceptions.  So we get the idea that there is something pure and unsullied which is different to our natural mind.  Thinking like this leads to abstraction - an abstract absolute pure and clean - which is currently contaminated.  And while people talk this way - actually the natural state permanently and eternally encompasses all states without becoming contaminated.  Because there is no contamination at all.

 

Having said this in most systems you work in your confusion.  So for instance in yoga 'yogas citti vritti nirodha' where yoga which means union with your true nature involves nirodha (cessation, evaporation) of vritti (disturbances) in citta (mind).  So for the yogi to achieve the stillness with which comes samadhi the the thoughts and emotions and so on are allowed to evaporate back to being citta (self aware energy) itself.  Most people say this is about stilling the mind, becoming calm but its more precise than that.  It is saying if you observe the vritti they will, because they are nothing other than fluctuations in citta, self liberate to the natural state.  And while there is effort involved in getting yourself to study and meditate this liberation is spontaneous and effortless.

 

 

[ilumairen]

14 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Ok vey... back to you

 

You are remembering and quoting some Norbu analogy, but I am not.

 

:laughing: Can't really provide a quote I've yet to find. 

 

I did find you referencing Norbu in a thread in your ppd, and have started going over the book you quoted. Thanks. 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by ilumairen
typo

[Jonesboy]

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

Oi vey.

 

You didn't come up with the analogy, and I'm pretty sure @Jonesboy shared the Norbu quote I was looking for somewhere around here, or at least referenced it.

 

Are you aware of which book it is in?

 

And yes, I understand you didn't mean the analogy as a reference to a particular kind of consciousness, and at the same time I'd like to understand the analogy as it has been presented by past masters - and come to be something of a "collective understanding" - or at least lend itself to (assumption of) such.

 

I am trying to remember, are you referring to my quote about Buddha Nature from The Self Perfected State by Norbu?

[ilumairen]

15 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I am trying to remember, are you referring to my quote about Buddha Nature from The Self Perfected State by Norbu?

 

Thank you for trying.

 

Something will eventually manifest.. 

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Thank you for trying.

 

Something will eventually manifest.. 

 

Can you give me a little bit more of what you are looking for? 

[Jonesboy]

39 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

 

 

 

 

Some really, really good stuff in that thread.

[Jeff]

38 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

:laughing: Can't really provide a quote I've yet to find. 

 

I did find you referencing Norbu in a thread in your ppd, and have stated going over the book you quoted. Thanks. 

 

 

The Norbu book that I often recommend is Dzogchen: The Self Perfected State.  Not sure if that helps.

 

Edited...

 

Haha... See someone beat me to mentioning it...

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jeff

[dwai]

12 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

I have an aversion to the word exactly, and generally when I see it I wish to walk away, and when I use it generally means the person I'm responding to would be best served by walking away. 

 

But.. it basically means whatever object you see is dependent in it's arising and impermanent. Pick something, and explore it for yourself - see if you can separate a thing from emptiness. 

From the Advaita  point of view, there are five attributes to any thing. Three contribute to what is called "brahma rupam" (or the nature of Brahman) and two that contribute to "jagat rupam" (or the nature of samsara/transactional reality). 

 

Brahma rupam comprises of "Asti, Bhāti, Priyam" (or Beingness, Illumination and desirability). Jagatrupam comprises of "Nāma, Rūpa" (or Name and Form).

 

To apply the above information to understanding "form is empty and emptiness is form", consider the following --

 

The Names and Forms are many and ever-changing. So "Form is empty" alludes to fact that names and forms lack self-nature (Svabhāva shunya), and therefore are "empty".  The flip side of it is "Emptiness is Form", alludes to the fact that the underlying stuff "awareness" is empty, yet forms and names appear in/from/to it. Thus, Names and Forms are nothing but appearances of the same emptiness (which is not empty). To extrapolate further, when stuck with the understanding that duality (name and form) is somehow permanent and real, samsara is bondage. When understanding that the underlying reality of duality is emptiness (Pure objectless awareness/consciousness), Samsara is Nirvana. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by dwai

[Jonesboy]

I would have to disagree that the Heart Sutra has anything to do with a mental understanding. Both sides are about realizations of being.

 

Just discussing the first part of the sutra, Form=Void.

 

First what is Form? What is the true nature of Form? Since we have been discussing Dzogchen in this thread let's use the definition from Norbu when talking about the Primordial State. 

 

 

The third of the three primordial wisdoms is energy. Its

characteristic is that it manifests without interruption.4 The

explanation of energy in Dzogchen is fundamental to understanding

the base. All dimensions, whether pure or impure,

material or subtle, are manifestations of one aspect or

another of energy.

 

So all form is energy, now what is void?

 

The essence is the void, the real condition of the individual

and of all phenomena. This base is the condition of all individuals,

whether they are aware of it or not, whether they

are enlightened or in transmigration. It is said to be "pure

from the beginning" (ka dag), because, like space, it is free of

all impediments, and is the basis of all the manifestations in

existence.

 

So the first part is saying that one has to realize that all things are energy and that the true nature of energy is void.

 

A much deeper realization that looking at a fire and saying it has no self nature because it is dependent on wood and air for example.

[C T]

As Ponlop Rinpoche said, though intrinsically wisdom mind and samsaric mind is the same, the differences manifest in terms of expression - the former unbound by time and space, while the latter transmigrate within the three times by way of habitual tendencies. 

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, C T said:

As Ponlop Rinpoche said, though intrinsically wisdom mind and samsaric mind is the same, the differences manifest in terms of expression - the former unbound by time and space, while the latter transmigrate within the three times by way of habitual tendencies. 

 

Great quote. Amazingly, this same concept just came up in another thread. Here is Jesus’s version of it...

 

83. Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."

[ilumairen]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

I would have to disagree that the Heart Sutra has anything to do with a mental understanding. Both sides are about realizations of being.

 

Thank you for your disagreement. My little squiggly shared lines on the screen were dependent in their arising, and a simplification as the question asked seemed best answered in such a manner. 

 

I like the manner in which things were laid out in the book Journey to Certainty, from coarse intellectual understanding through the arising of experiential understanding.. to certainty. 

 

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

So the first part is saying that one has to realize that all things are energy and that the true nature of energy is void.

 

A much deeper realization that looking at a fire and saying it has no self nature because it is dependent on wood and air for example.

 

I don't believe I would use the same words you have, but certainly accept the sentiment of deeper understanding. 

 

Dependent arising is an aid in seeing emptiness, the inseperability of appearance and emptiness, and quite "useful" imo and ime at lessening both grasping and aversion - what seems to me to be the basis of obstructing expression, or missing (losing awareness of) our connection to the natural state.  

 

Warm regards, and thanks for the expression and exploration.

 

[Jonesboy]

17 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Thank you for your disagreement. My little squiggly shared lines on the screen were dependent in their arising, and a simplification as the question asked seemed best answered in such a manner. 

 

I like the manner in which things were laid out in the book Journey to Certainty, from coarse intellectual understanding through the arising of experiential understanding.. to certainty. 

 

 

I don't believe I would use the same words you have, but certainly accept the sentiment of deeper understanding. 

 

Dependent arising is an aid in seeing emptiness, the inseperability of appearance and emptiness, and quite "useful" imo and ime at lessening both grasping and aversion - what seems to me to be the basis of obstructing expression, or missing (losing awareness of) our connection to the natural state.  

 

Warm regards, and thanks for the expression and exploration.

 

 

I am glad it works for you. The Buddha was a wise man and provided many means.

 

All the best..

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

I would have to disagree that the Heart Sutra has anything to do with a mental understanding. Both sides are about realizations of being.

 

In my view, anything put down in words requires a mental understanding. While it may point to non-conceptual "understanding" it cannot escape the conceptual vehicle. We must read and then interpret the words, linking them to a conceptual image of whatever the words are pointing to. The very idea that a scripture has nothing to do with mental understanding is a clue to just how insidious and pervasive the conceptual mind is in our life and practice. 

 

I recently had a discussion with a very advanced practitioner and teacher in which I brought up something that I'm finding in my practice. In my meditation practice it is sometimes difficult to discern whether I have allowed a thought or impression to spontaneously liberate or whether I (the meditator) have interrupted or suppressed, which is not the proper technique. When I raised the question she quickly pointed to that very concern as the problem. The one questioning is, in and of itself, the most insidious and challenging one. Far worse than the "problem" he was pointing out.