Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I mentioned the 3 aspects because the comment said that everything was emptiness. I thought it was important.

 

From Dzogchen Teachings pg 59.

 

From Dzogchen Teachings pg 61.

 

 

The bolded is what I was getting at.

 

Understood, I don't disagree with what you said, I just wanted to point out that this isn't considered 'the Dzogchen view'

It's just a description of three characteristics of the base.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am curious why all the emphasis on the "Primordial State"  This in plain old English means "First State".

 

To me this is the very definition of anti evolutionary or devolvement to a no - thing  and makes less than zero sense,  since it it is tantamount to saying,    hmm We should do our best to return to Egg and Sperm.

 

Guess I am missing something.

 

Seems to me pointless to have come from the primordial state only to seek comfort in becoming nothing again in fact the direction is backasswards. 

 

Seems to me they have latched onto gong backwards instead of the natural obvious motion of progression which is away from the starting point, wow what a joke if this is indeed the case.

Very good question and topic. 

 

Maybe going forwards is actually returning to the beginning? And perhaps our beginning state is not “egg and sperm” but something else. 

 

Theres an interesting verse from the Gospel of Thomas. I don’t know if it applies here but I will share it. 

 

 

Quote

18. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" 

 

Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. 

Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

 

 

 

 

Edited by Fa Xin
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

Very good question and topic. 

 

Maybe going forwards is actually returning to the beginning? And perhaps our beginning state is not “egg and sperm” but something else. 

 

Theres an interesting verse from the Gospel of Thomas. I don’t know if it applies here but I will share it. 

 

 

Excellent post.  And it definitely applies. :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

If we are all Buddha's, One like Siva.. however you want to say it but it is unrealized in the present moment. How did that happen?

 

What is the end state for your tradition?

 Kriya more than anything else is about actualizing the Gita. 

Spoiler

As such the highest actualization (MAKE A REALITY OUT OF)  one can develop in Kriya is that of unity with the formless God and realizing God alone is the sole doer of all things in life.

 

That you as Tom are not that which gives life to your body and you have no say as to when you will be evicted even and are very much just along for the ride. 

 

This does not happen all at once either,  it is a very slow progression and there is lots of forgetting and re-remembering as well.

 

This is liberation while incarnate to the degree one can actualize this. Liberation is not an all or nothing process.

 

For me there is fluctuation, it is much much easier to maintain this actualization when I am alone and more complete when I have to interact with other people local mind is used to communicate.  

 

Over time the blending where that which is easy while alone and introverted has become more pronounced while interacting so the personality changes.

 

There is nothing better than having a spouse to bring your development out especially during a heated discussion.

 

This is why Lahiri forbade his students from becoming Swamis.

 

If you want real progress in life then be a householder take a job, take a wife and have kids then you get to find out how much you may or may not be bullshitting yourself.

 

In this way swifter progress is made than by sitting on a mountain or being all alone or in an ashram of the like minded.

 

Through the practice of Kriya which is Tantric in nature you first become aware of the triple divine qualities and all that follows.

 

Then enter into Samadhi of various degrees and this puts you in direct contact with the reality of what I am trying to share.

 

As for myself as a practitioner of the higher Kriyas 3 and 4 respectively I can say, you can achieve the various Samadhi States Including Nirvakalpa.

 

These states of duality followed by non duality awareness and even something which is not awareness at all but beyond minds ability call awareness recognize as awareness or discuss as it is beyond mind and words are most certainly not functioning at the level of daily life.

 

When in Samadhi you most certainly will not be capable of so much as walking let alone communicating.

 

In the past year I was interrupted once while in a very deep state of Samadhi and it took quite some time before I could actually return and even communicate as the gaps between thoughts were so long to traverse and there was no desire to.

 

I suspect I looked like a corpse as I was in full Kechari with the head tilted back and mouth open when I realized someone had entered the room. This was because they got home from work and could not find me. Little did I know I had been sitting for around 3 hours, I had planned to be available by the time she got home.

 

During the day and waking life you can be in samadhi of various degrees but not the deeper samadhi that is quite impossible as to achieve those depths you loose all connection to the physical body or knowledge of it existence to the extent when returning you wonder if it is even real at all from time to time.

 

For that matter you understand the the reality of waking world is less valid than where you just were. This is where you get so much mistaken talk about life being an illusion from.

 

Anyway I digress.

 

The purpose of Samadhi is not to show off,  not to have people find you in a altered state,  not to even do it to see if what I am saying is a real thing or not. NO!

 

The purpose of Samadhi is to realize directly so you may actualize that which mind alone will ever only end in intellectual word vomiting. 

 

This is the end state for Kriya not Nirvakalpa Samadhi but actualization of ones truest reality no matter what garment you wear a crude meat and bone material earth garment or a more refined material garment of the astral.

 

When you wrote earlier that to you all was astral I thought that is a very good statement indeed. Astral is still on the material plane but more refined and there are many layers of refinement.

 

 Still even if one finds oneself in a more refined physical incarnation let us say after the body has perished the outer may change but the inner is still the same and as such subject to eviction and rebirth to be evicted again until realization and actualization are such that there is no affinity at which point one is on to the casual realm which is not astral.

 

It is in the deepest Samadhi of Nirvakalpa when the heart rests no longer beating and the lungs rest no longer breathing and the energy which was heretofore used to keep these activities going has been withdrawn by bliss immersion that the soul of mankind is freed and is home in the casual realm where there is no mind, emotions or anything to be confused with being incarnate and when you return home and then return here again you bring home with you to whatever degree you may.

 

This is what Kriya for it is a vehicle of liberation but it has to be done while incarnate as a human being because it is not a bypass or a shortcut system it is a tradition, a system whose sole end state is to no longer have a state at all :) 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not view it the same as some, no my view is rather inclusive. 

 

5 hours ago, C T said:

Assume it all begins at A. 

Curiosity sets in 

One sees lots of things manifesting within A

That curiosity prompts ideas that these manifestations are not-A

since each appear to have its own separate identity

Fragmentation sets in

Restlessness follows

One seeks to return to A

Lots of hard work, frustrations, seeming breakthroughs felt

 A dawning of satisfaction and sense of achievement 

that all the hard work paid off

And one has at long last attained freedom

Suddenly one startles from that dream

 realizes, with much laughter (and tears)

No matter how much one tries

One could never

be separated from 

A

 

This part I agree with but it comes much, much later and requires a degree of self awareness.

 

I would say it starts from the casual realm yet what is there lacks awareness it is just pure being.

 

The term awake and awakening Is often used. I posit it goes even deeper than conventional usage and state that the primordial state  not only lacked awareness but woke.

 

Upon awakening it got a mind and sensory apparatus of some sort but was both dumb and ignorant beyond what anything call-itself a cat would believe even.

 

So it became the elements and got experience as Mind, Ether, Air, Fire, Water and earth.

 

Then spent quite some time as each until learning to combine and become something more complex.

 

Eventually leaving the mineral Kingdom for the Plant kingdom to the viral kingdom the bacterial the aquatic of many forms the reptilian, The mammalian of many forms and finally as a creature much like an ape walking upright with a sufficiently developed Brain and nervous system to become self questioning tool and language using creature.

 

upon gaining self awareness and greater sentience the creature becomes quite mad for millions of incarnations and in the later stages calms and begins seeking its own true nature.

 

Being quite unable to see the future it looks to the past for answers. And it comes up with things like the primordial.

 

The original state of abject mindless abandon of just existing and thinks oh what a burden this mind with never ending thoughts how nice it would be to just be aware.

 

Awareness with clarity ah such a wonderful imagined state.

 

Truth is it was never so wonderful nor was the primordial state or else it never would have been left behind.

 

Certainly curiosity has played a huge part and always will.

 

Not knowing what the future holds we create all kind of ingenious systems to  return to the casual plane nice dips and we come back soaking wet and feel much better.

 

We call it Samadhi. But this is only part of the deal.

 

What we are really doing is waking up constantly to our own evolution by constantly living. 

 

Eventually we will return to the casual but not as the same ignorant infantile beings we started out as but fully awake and adult.

 

When that happens there will be no reason to return to all which has been lived no affinity and then the journey will continue beyond what any mortal may hope to imagine.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, C T said:

I think relative to this thread, clarity refers to the onset of pure perception viz establishing a continuum of awareness whereby forms are recognised as none other than manifestations from one's own universal mind (:D) and by definition perfect in its own nature. This is an attractive state, often appearing in the dream states (leaving fuzzy recollections) and most people actually have strong inklings what it is, which is wonderful. The thing with this almost-recognition comes the desire to generate assumptions by way of over-reliance and deference to intellectualism, and this gives birth to and simultaneously compounds actions that support grasping and aversion, which is how duality comes to be.

 

I thought duality arose with the process of naming.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

The original state of abject mindless abandon of just existing and thinks oh what a burden this mind with never ending thoughts how nice it would be to just be aware.

 

For me personally it's an understanding of how the mind (local mind :lol:) creates it's own suffering - suffering which can be abated by taking a "step back".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I think that shows a lack of history on the Theravadans part because if Mahayana Buddhism was corrupted, it would have been corrupted by Tantra, specifically Nondual Shaiva Tantra. 

 

The problem with reading books is that Buddhism is not a religion of the book, like Protestant Christianity. Buddhism relies on oral transmission, and proper transmission requires that the teacher has realized the teachings. In that way, the teacher can guide the student experientially toward the same goal (or non-goal). The terms are coded, and the meaning on the terms can vary depending on the context in which they are taught. 

 

Accordingly, the only way to really learn Buddhism is to interact with a teacher and a sangha over an extended period of time, learning the practices experientially, and receiving feedback. To put it another way, it is an experiential transmission. This is especially true when dealing with Zen, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra. The teachings are put forth in a specific way for specific reasons. The idea of any self, universal or not, works crosswise against the techniques of Buddhism. This isn't to say that Self teachings aren't useful and liberating, say in a NST or a Vedanta context. It just isn't the case in a Buddhist context. 

 

 

I’m saying this after  interactions with a teacher who trained in the classical guru-Kula system, with a madhyāmaka master. Also with another  who is a formal disciple of shifu Sheng Yen, a 3rd generation dharma heir of Hsu Yun. He also is a jivanamukta per the Advaita Vedanta tradition. 

 

I think for the most part, the misunderstanding comes from incomplete teaching (not necessarily because the teacher doesn’t know, but because the student is not yet ready to go beyond the no-self doctrine).

 

I know this might be construed as controversial...but it’s okay to court a little controversy in pursuit of the truth :) 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Eventually we will return to the casual but not as the same ignorant infantile beings we started out as but fully awake and adult.

 

When that happens there will be no reason to return to all which has been lived no affinity and then the journey will continue beyond what any mortal may hope to imagine.

 

 

 

Just a quick note about returning to the causal, after awakening. That is not correct imho. 

 

Causal body/causal plane is pure being veiled by Tamoguna. When awakening occurs, the limitations of the body-mind are transcended. So there is no longer going back to causal plane. The three bodies - physical, Astral and causal are realized as being appearances within the One without a second, aka the Self, which is nondual, free from all limitations, etc.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                                    I have lost my mind.

                                    I don’t know

                                    In what it is lost,

                                    Or why it is in such Bliss.

                                         -  Baul Song -

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

I thought duality arose with the process of naming.. 

 

 

Yes, that's possible. 

 

The over-reliance and persistent habit of assigning labels (names) simultaneously produces and compounds actions that can only be carried out, and in the taking of such actions, sets in motion a process that will continue to bear latent seeds (as emotions and thoughts) that will further sustain the birth of similar, or what will appear as similar actions in a seeming cyclical pattern. Within the restrictive confines of those habits that desire to create labels is where concepts of self and other continuously bounce off each other like in an arcade game of virtual Pong (that mesmerised the kids of the 70s, remember?) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dwai said:

I’m saying this after  interactions with a teacher who trained in the classical guru-Kula system, with a madhyāmaka master. Also with another  who is a formal disciple of shifu Sheng Yen, a 3rd generation dharma heir of Hsu Yun. He also is a jivanamukta per the Advaita Vedanta tradition. 

 

I think for the most part, the misunderstanding comes from incomplete teaching (not necessarily because the teacher doesn’t know, but because the student is not yet ready to go beyond the no-self doctrine).

 

I know this might be construed as controversial...but it’s okay to court a little controversy in pursuit of the truth :) 

 

 

Cool stuff that you know a jivanamukta (per AV).  Is it someone that you periodically talk to?  Or someone you are seeing now on your trip?

Share this post


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

 

Yes, that's possible. 

 

The over-reliance and persistent habit of assigning labels (names) simultaneously produces and compounds actions that can only be carried out, and in the taking of such actions, sets in motion a process that will continue to bear latent seeds (as emotions and thoughts) that will further sustain the birth of similar, or what will appear as similar actions in a seeming cyclical pattern. Within the restrictive confines of those habits that desire to create labels is where concepts of self and other continuously bounce off each other like in an arcade game of virtual Pong (that mesmerised the kids of the 70s, remember?) 

 

My view is that it is more “desire” that drives dualistic perspective. Even the first desire for food in a baby goes...

 

1) Hunger (not yet labeled desire)

2) Satiation of hunger

3) Source of satiation (mother, but not yet labeled)

4) Absence of source of satiation

 

Now everything is off in to dualistic land. There is no need to label or name things, simple desire creates the polarity of dualistic perspective.

 

Share this post


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

 

My view is that it is more “desire” that drives dualistic perspective. Even the first desire for food in a baby goes...

 

1) Hunger (not yet labeled desire)

2) Satiation of hunger

3) Source of satiation (mother, but not yet labeled)

4) Absence of source of satiation

 

Now everything is off in to dualistic land. There is no need to label or name things, simple desire creates the polarity of dualistic perspective.

 

 

Hmm.... need to think about the notion of hunger as desire... but from a wider scope i do get your drift. 

I've always considered hunger as a natural function of physicality. Perhaps obsessive cravings for sense gratification 

pose a greater probability as an obstacle to mindfulness (as a condition of remaining in equanimous poise beyond extremes). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Cool stuff that you know a jivanamukta (per AV).  Is it someone that you periodically talk to?  Or someone you are seeing now on your trip?

Someone I’ve been talking to on and off :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

I thought duality arose with the process of naming.. 

 

 

 

I think it arises from the subject/object division which is a consequence of vijnana (as per the 12 steps of dependent origination).

Share this post


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

 

My view is that it is more “desire” that drives dualistic perspective. Even the first desire for food in a baby goes...

 

1) Hunger (not yet labeled desire)

2) Satiation of hunger

3) Source of satiation (mother, but not yet labeled)

4) Absence of source of satiation

 

Now everything is off in to dualistic land. There is no need to label or name things, simple desire creates the polarity of dualistic perspective.

 

 

This is something I've considered over the years, and the memories the "self" uses to build up the cyclical grasping and aversion (in the way I understand it) seem dependent upon language.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I think it arises from the subject/object division which is a consequence of vijnana (as per the 12 steps of dependent origination).

 

The subject is the divider - naming and labeling their objective experience - from the perspective of an already labeled and defined sense of self.

 

At least this is how it appears to me.

 

Edited by ilumairen

Share this post


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

 

The subject is the divider - naming and labeling their objective experience - from the perspective of an already labeled and defined sense of self.

 

At least this is how it appears to me.

 

 

Consciousness divides to know - if your 'subject' is consciousness then I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

Consciousness divides to know - if your 'subject' is consciousness then I agree.

 

conscious (adj.)

c. 1600, "knowing, privy to" (poetic), from Latin conscius "knowing, aware," from conscire "be (mutually) aware," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know" (see science). The Latin word probably is a loan-translation of Greek syneidos.

 

science (n.)

mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens(genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dwai said:

 

Just a quick note about returning to the causal, after awakening. That is not correct imho. 

 

Causal body/causal plane is pure being veiled by Tamoguna. When awakening occurs, the limitations of the body-mind are transcended. So there is no longer going back to causal plane. The three bodies - physical, Astral and causal are realized as being appearances within the One without a second, aka the Self, which is nondual, free from all limitations, etc.

 

Thanks you just said what I was trying to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Consciousness divides to know - if your 'subject' is consciousness then I agree.

 

This brings up the usefulness of duality (when defined as particular focus of attention on aspects of experience/reality).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, C T said:

The over-reliance and persistent habit of assigning labels (names) simultaneously produces and compounds actions that can only be carried out, and in the taking of such actions, sets in motion a process that will continue to bear latent seeds (as emotions and thoughts) that will further sustain the birth of similar, or what will appear as similar actions in a seeming cyclical pattern. Within the restrictive confines of those habits that desire to create labels is where concepts of self and other continuously bounce off each other like in an arcade game of virtual Pong (that mesmerised the kids of the 70s, remember?) 

 

This post is timely, and a bit golden for me - particularly the reference to cyclical seeming patterns. One of my "go to" practices is the Six Lokas, and when it arises as "time to go to" the indicative sensations invariably have arisen due to someone getting caught up in the seeming cycles.

 

With recent reflection, there were thoughts having to do with people creating and becoming trapped in their own hells and mind constructed prisons.

 

Just like the hours my friend and I spent transfixed by the TV screen as we played pong on a rainy afternoon. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I’m saying this after  interactions with a teacher who trained in the classical guru-Kula system, with a madhyāmaka master. Also with another  who is a formal disciple of shifu Sheng Yen, a 3rd generation dharma heir of Hsu Yun. He also is a jivanamukta per the Advaita Vedanta tradition. 

 

I think for the most part, the misunderstanding comes from incomplete teaching (not necessarily because the teacher doesn’t know, but because the student is not yet ready to go beyond the no-self doctrine).

 

I know this might be construed as controversial...but it’s okay to court a little controversy in pursuit of the truth :) 

 

 

The no self teaching isn't as much of a doctrine as an experiential pointing. A lot of people struggle with it --- I know I did for many years. It is very subtle--- so subtle in fact that the Buddha almost didn't teach at all. Also keep in mind that when we talk about the teachings, there is the conceptual and the non-conceptual. The conceptual points the way, but in the end the fruition is non-conceptual. Even conceptually, non-self is often misinterpreted as nihilism (i.e. if there is no self, who is typing this post?) or eternalism (no self applies to everything but not the True Self). It is a fine line to walk. That's ok, Buddhism is not for everyone. 

 

No self was something of a koan for me, driving me to different traditions: Theravada, Zen, and finally Tibetan Buddhism. I also have friends in many other traditions. All the people with experience who I trusted repeated the same thing about the lack of self. I didn't like it and I wanted there to be a self. Finally, I realized that I either trusted the teachers and the traditions or I didn't. Only then was I able to drop my preconceptions and see things a bit more clearly. Now, if the Buddha himself appeared and said he didn't teach no self, it wouldn't matter. The truth is plain. I doubt he would given the very, very numerous recorded no-self teachings captured in Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan sources. 

 

Ironically, given the emptiness of all things, people are free to create the patterning that they want. I never said the position I am putting forth is universal, but I have found it to be overwhelmingly the majority position in all the schools I have encountered. Usually, the people who state that the Buddha taught a True Self tend to fall into two categories in my experience: Vedantins and crack-pots. For Vedantins, I sometimes find a tendency try to reduce all religions to one universal religion: Vedanta. The crack-pots are usually self-appointed, messianic, and quite self-centered. 

 

In an article I posted earlier, Vajranatha states that the position can be found in some strains of Chinese Buddhism, but such teachings are not reflected in the Indian sources. So I admit that it is possible that True Self may be taught in such schools, but as I stated it is very much a minority position. 

 

Sheng Yen was a very orthodox teacher. He did teach about a universal mind, but only as a stage of practice. I would be surprised that despite his many public proclamations, he would find a atman/Brahman in Buddhism. I did not study with him, so I am not privy to his oral teachings as your friend may. I am vaguely acquainted with some of his students and dharma heirs, and they have also denied an underlying true self in his teachings (and I certainly looked!). Given emptiness, anything is possible.  

 

 

Edited by forestofemptiness
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites