Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

(...) 

The no self teaching isn't as much of a doctrine as an experiential pointing. A lot of people struggle with it. 

(...) 

 

In the past, I've practiced according to no-self doctrines of buddhism and I experienced the reality of no-self. In a different period of my life, I've followed true-self doctrines and I experienced the tangible reality of the Atman. 

It's just a matter of perspectives and beliefs.

 

Now, I advance the hypothesis that the real purpose of the various schools is to help people attain a state of absolute detachment... and to believe in the self or not isn't that important after all. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As per the thread title, I know firsthand that Tantra (especially) loves to pry open, dredge out and challenge practitioners' beliefs and make a mockery of them often. 

 

Regarding the notion of self though, I think investigative insight will yield greater clarity when beliefs are replaced by experiential knowing (prajna). 

 

(ref. above comment by Cheshire Cat  "....to believe in the self or not isn't that important after all." )

Edited by C T
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 11:13 AM, dwai said:

There are several sutras that describe a “universal nature” varyingly as tathāgata garbha, buddhadhātū, etc. Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Brahmajalasutra come to mind. 

 

The last round on this resulted in folks screaming “Theravada is best, Mahayana is defiled by brahminical concepts” circa 2008-2010 during the buddhabum wars on TDB. 

 

Fortunately, the base is unimputable.

All discussion and conclusions reflect our own projections and limitations.

 

All is well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

As per the thread title, I know firsthand that Tantra (especially) loves to pry open, dredge out and challenge practitioners' beliefs and make a mockery of them often. 

 

Regarding the notion of self though, I think investigative insight will yield greater clarity when beliefs are replaced by experiential knowing (prajna). 

 

(ref. above comment by Cheshire Cat  "....to believe in the self or not isn't that important after all." )

 

I think the above says it very well. :) 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Tantra (especially) loves to pry open, dredge out and challenge practitioners' beliefs and make a mockery of them often. 

Very true.

 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Regarding the notion of self though, I think investigative insight will yield greater clarity when beliefs are replaced by experiential knowing (prajna). 

 

Anyone who has known me for years will get what the laugh is about.

 

Formerly E.K.  Now I know it could have been shortened to (Prajna)

Edited by Pilgrim
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Hmm. All is see here is munching over second hand thoughts tho'. X Y Z said this and that.

 

Anyone with insight is capable of expressing things in their own words, instead of clinging to external authority and attacking those that do otherwise.

 

Guess I don’t really understand your point?  My comment praising CT’s words seems to me specifically that he was expressing things in his own words (and why I complemented/agreed him).  In particular...

 

On 6/29/2019 at 3:42 PM, C T said:

As per the thread title, I know firsthand that Tantra (especially) loves to pry open, dredge out and challenge practitioners' beliefs and make a mockery of them often. 

...

 

The entire purpose of tantra is to pry opened and dredge out stuff. And after you are finally able to let it go, you do sort of find yourself laughing at how you could ever have been caught up in it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 29/6/2019 at 10:42 PM, C T said:

As per the thread title, I know firsthand that Tantra (especially) loves to pry open, dredge out and challenge practitioners' beliefs and make a mockery of them often. 

 

Can you expand on this? 

I'm not sure which type of tantric practices you are referring to... 

 

Regarding prajna... 

I've often heard the concept of prajna, Buddhist wisdom discerning reality, developed through the medium of pure dedicated practice of meditative absorption. I'm familiar with the gracious teachings of mahayana and I know that there are various "flavors" in exploring this subject, but I think that we should also mention the other "half" of the meditative system, named samadhi in order to get a proper idea of the role of prajna. 

 

The method of dual cultivation of prajna and samadhi seems to be consistent in many forms of buddhist cultivation. 

Samadhi is the development of stability and absorption through the exercise of directing the undivided attention of one's mind to a specific subject. According to buddhist belief, many different religions and sects cultivate this ability of the mind and it's a sort of universal practice. 

To concentrate on the dantien point and cultivate inner winds, to recite prayers and to chant a non-buddhist mantra are all means to cultivate samadhi. 

Buddhists believe that you can't reach enlightenment with samadhi only and that samadhi doesn't lead to prajna. 

 

Cultivation becomes buddhism only when the disciple cultivates Prajna as well. 

How is prajna cultivated? The method involves the dogmatic acceptance of a number of elements that comes from Buddhist philosophy: rebirth, anatta (no-self), impermanence, etc... 

Those elements must be internalized, studied and pondered deeply. They must be understood firmly on a conceptual level and then experienced in daily activities with the power of samadhi. 

In Tantra, all of those philosophical elements are structured in meaningful imagery, rituals and mantras. One of the reasons of the higher status of tantric buddhist practices is that one needs a profound knowledge of buddhist philosophy to get all of those associations of visualized objects, mudras and mantras. For example, if you are well versed in buddhist philosophy, it's enough to visualize a curved fish-knife in your practice (and through the day) to stabilize in your consciousness a very specific buddhist understanding. If you know little of buddhist philosophy, a fish-knife remains a fish-knife. 

 

What about all of those energy practices in Tantra? 

As many probably already know, the energy practices are performed after the preliminary visualization training and the tantric practitioner is stable in visualizing himself as a deity. Therefore, the energy practices which are forms of pure samadhi meditation are engaged in combination with prajna meditation. 

 

This should clarify why I said that beliefs and perspectives are so important in buddhism and subjective experiential knowledge ... 

 

Edited by Cheshire Cat
Typo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 9:07 AM, Pilgrim said:

Very true.

 

Anyone who has known me for years will get what the laugh is about.

 

Formerly E.K.  Now I know it could have been shortened to (Prajna)

 

You should probably update your post to give credit to that actual author of those comments. It was not me. :) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 9:19 PM, Cheshire Cat said:

experienced the tangible reality of the Atman. 

:ph34r::wub:

Share this post


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

I would like to add a bit by Sadhguru, that covers tantra as a tool, not relying on any external physical partner to contribute when you create. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuVsPLOGz14

:)

 

Thanks for posting.  I would just say that light is not really a limited happening as stated in the video. A great sun the burns hard and fast does not die, but rather becomes a black hole. A black hole pulls in and creates other suns, that broader field then can become a quasar. And a quasar, is vastly brighter than any sun... :) 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for posting.  I would just say that light is not really a limited happening as stated in the video. A great sun the burns hard and fast does not die, but rather becomes a black hole. A black hole pulls in and creates other suns, that broader field then can become a quasar. And a quasar, is vastly brighter than any sun... :) 

 

Now that's a cool comparison.

 

I'm looking up quasars on google now... :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Thanks for posting.  I would just say that light is not really a limited happening as stated in the video. A great sun the burns hard and fast does not die, but rather becomes a black hole. A black hole pulls in and creates other suns, that broader field then can become a quasar. And a quasar, is vastly brighter than any sun... :) 

 

When the surrounding material has been burned through (rather literally) the quasar ceases to be a "quasar" - making it an (extremely large) "limited happening." ;)

Share this post


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

 

When the surrounding material has been burned through (rather literally) the quasar ceases to be a "quasar" - making it an (extremely large) "limited happening." ;)

 

So, when everything has been cleared it's all emptiness?

 

:)

Share this post


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

 

So, when everything has been cleared it's all emptiness?

 

:)

 

:lol: It's emptiness even in arising form. And I'm currently contemplating how emptiness would even be recognized, discovered, what have you, without form.. 

 

Perhaps we're using and/or understanding the word "emptiness" differently?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

:lol: It's emptiness even in arising form. And I'm currently contemplating how emptiness would even be recognized, discovered, what have you, without form.. 

 

Perhaps we're using and/or understanding the word "emptiness" differently?

 

What is form? What is this world? How can a Buddha create different worlds/pure lands?

 

Maybe we should start there?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

When the surrounding material has been burned through (rather literally) the quasar ceases to be a "quasar" - making it an (extremely large) "limited happening." ;)

 

Not at all.  When a quasar is done, a new galaxy is created.  A brief description from Wikipedia below...

 

Since quasars exhibit all the properties common to other active galaxies such as Seyfert galaxies, the emission from quasars can be readily compared to those of smaller active galaxies powered by smaller supermassive black holes. To create a luminosity of 1040 watts (the typical brightness of a quasar), a super-massive black hole would have to consume the material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. The largest known is estimated to consume matter equivalent to 600 Earths per minute. Quasar luminosities can vary considerably over time, depending on their surroundings. Since it is difficult to fuel quasars for many billions of years, after a quasar finishes accreting the surrounding gas and dust, it becomes an ordinary galaxy.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

 

The old is burned away to make way for the new (potential). :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Not at all.  When a quasar is done, a new galaxy is created.

 

And the quasar has been a limited event in the process of change. 

 

3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The old is burned away to make way for the new (potential). :) 

 

This statement itself lends to the idea of "limited happening."

Share this post


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

 

And the quasar has been a limited event in the process of change. 

 

 

This statement itself lends to the idea of "limited happening."

 

The quasar (or original black hole) is the new galaxy itself, but yes all process of change is limited. Similar to an energy body being a limited happening, but as it burns away the underlying “primordial” is always still there.

Share this post


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

 

What is form?

 

Form is what we perceive, and whatever we perceive is empty. 

 

8 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

What is this world?

 

Empty. :lol:

 

8 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

How can a Buddha create different worlds/pure lands?

 

Through the two eyes of valid cognition. 

 

8 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Maybe we should start there?

 

Probably not.. I would start with the indivisibility of form and emptiness. 

 

Joyful smiles and much love to you Jonesboy.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

The quasar (or original black hole) is the new galaxy itself, but yes all process of change is limited. Similar to an energy body being a limited happening, but as it burns away the underlying “primordial” is always still there.

 

Quote

 

The ultimate is said to be beyond the world only because it is veiled by the appearances of the world - and for ordinary beings appearances are the world. In fact the ultimate is not seperate from phenomenon. The ultimate is what the conventional really is; the conventional is the way the ultimate appears. The two truths are never seperate; they merge and coincide in phenomena.

 

[From the introductory material in Introduction to the Middle Way ]

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the phrase "really is," but agree with the sentiment expressed. 

 

Is your primordial equivalent to the author's ultimate? And is your primordial somehow separated from it's expression in form? Where would the separation (if it exists in your paradigm and isn't a misunderstanding of your paradigm on my part) occur?

 

Share this post


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

 

The quasar (or original black hole) is the new galaxy itself, but yes all process of change is limited.

 

Wouldn't a new galaxy be predominately "dark" - with points of burning light, just as Sadhguru highlighted in the video?

 

And wouldn't even a quasar be a point of burning light in vast darkness?

 

Are we attached to the idea/ concept of light to the exclusion of observable conventional reality?

 

In what manner do you wish this idea of light to be understood?

 

What is "light" to you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

Similar to an energy body being a limited happening, but as it burns away the underlying “primordial” is always still there.

 

And what do you mean (or what are you referring to) when you use the phrase "energy body"? Corporeal form? Or perhaps the concepts collated to form an idea of "self"?

 

Both would fit with the idea of "as it burns away," and I'm finding I honestly don't know what you're referring to.

 

Of course I could pretend, but I'd rather ask than assume.

Edited by ilumairen

Share this post


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

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the phrase "really is," but agree with the sentiment expressed. 

 

Is your primordial equivalent to the author's ultimate? And is your primordial somehow separated from it's expression in form? Where would the separation (if it exists in your paradigm and isn't a misunderstanding of your paradigm on my part) occur?

 

 

I am not familiar with the author or what ultimate means to him, so not sure how (or what) to try to compare. Separation of “what” from “what”? No idea what you are asking.

Share this post


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

 

Wouldn't a new galaxy be predominately "dark" - with points of burning light, just as Sadhguru highlighted in the video?

 

And wouldn't even a quasar be a point of burning light in vast darkness?

 

Are we attached to the idea/ concept of light to the exclusion of observable conventional reality?

 

In what manner do you wish this idea of light to be understood?

 

What is "light" to you?

 

 

The quasar point is a metaphor, not a definition. The Sadhguru point that I was originally addressing was about his concept that it was something that needed to be conserved in some way. Energy/light is only limited if one sees it from the perspective of an individual self. Energy/light is infinite and unlimited.

 

Conventional reality is more like a video game transmission overlaying the primordial. Change (or overlay) the transmission and what you call conventual reality changes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites