Jeff

Tantra...

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, rideforever said:

Thanks, where could I easily find the teachings on sung and energy practice you described earlier ?

 

Happy to discuss over PM if you’d like. But I’ll be going on retreat for a month starting tomorrow evening - so you’ll have to be quick :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

Happy to discuss over PM if you’d like. But I’ll be going on retreat for a month starting tomorrow evening - so you’ll have to be quick :)

 

Have fun !

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Tantra came from India and was neither Buddhist, Bon, nor Daoist.

 

All these that followed are different.

 

Buddhism and Bon due to Talopa who was taught by female Tantrics and his student Naropa of the six yogas of Naropa.

 

The Buddhists saw it was good and added it into their ways as did the Bon.

 

Where the taoists come in is a mystery how did it come to pass taoists make any claim to Tantra?

 

Furthermore When Talopa was taught and initiated into Tantra it was by females.

 

Tantra was originally a female Yogini System of practice. Later co-opted by men it appears once it took root in Tibet. 

 

It's Tilopa not Talopa - not that it matters much given it's a transliteration from Sanskrit/Tibetan.

 

The origin of Buddha-tantra is a little obscure but it does seem that Tantra emerged from the Kula/Kaula traditions which were clan lineages within families and then larger groups.  It is likely but not proved that Daoist Neidan influenced the Buddha and Yoga-tantras in the development of the chakra and energy systems - there was quite a lot of influence between China and India which is not always recognised.  Buddha-tantra practitioners would argue that the Buddha taught something like tantra and since he taught 84,000 dharmas and said himself these were like a handful of leaves compared to a forest there is no reason to doubt that he used every kind of practice to help those that sought liberation through him.

 

So I think its not so much that the Buddhists and Bon added this to their tradition but that it was always there although hidden because of the 'transgressive' nature of some of the sex and ingestion of 'impure' substances and so on.  The Mahasiddhas who lived in India from about 600 - 1300 AD explicitly taught these things - and this was the last cycle of development i.e. Vajrayana as Buddhism died out in India by about 1300 AD and was continued elsewhere particularly Tibet.

 

Tantra isn't a about sex in the normal sense although it uses sexual imagery and indeed the Mahasiddhas saw 'emptiness' or sunyata as a naked 16 year old dancing girl and wrote love poems to her.  Which kind of nails the argument that emptiness is some boring rational philosophical concept as it is often portrayed these days.

Edited by Apech
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

 

It's Tilopa not Talopa - not that it matters much given it's a transliteration from Sanskrit/Tibetan.

 

The origin of Buddha-tantra is a little obscure but it does seem that Tantra emerged from the Kula/Kaula traditions which were clan lineages within families and then larger groups.  It is likely but not proved that Daoist Neidan influenced the Buddha and Yoga-tantras in the development of the chakra and energy systems - there was quite a lot of influence between China and India which is not always recognised.  Buddha-tantra practitioners would argue that the Buddha taught something like tantra and since he taught 84,000 dharmas and said himself these were like a handful of leaves compared to a forest there is no reason to doubt that he used every kind of practice to help those that sought liberation through him.

 

So I think its not so much that the Buddhists and Bon added this to their tradition but that it was always there although hidden because of the 'transgressive' nature of some of the sex and ingestion of 'impure' substances and so on.  The Mahasiddhas who lived in India from about 600 - 1300 AD explicitly taught these things - and this was the last cycle of development i.e. Vajrayana as Buddhism died out in India by about 1300 AD and was continued elsewhere particularly India.

 

Tantra isn't a about sex in the normal sense although it uses sexual imagery and indeed the Mahasiddhas saw 'emptiness' or sunyata as a naked 16 year old dancing girl and wrote love poems to her.  Which kind of nails the argument that emptiness is some boring rational philosophical concept as it is often portrayed these days.

Thanks for the additional information well done! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On some level, Tantra, can be understood as the way towards cultivating a level of sustainable, easeful conduct untainted by, and free of distraction.

 

In the absence of distraction, the mundanity and routineness of habitual thoughts, words and actions evaporate of their own accord - there is no requirement for conscious doing or expanding energy to analyse, control, or subjugate the self in order to control emotions and other psychophysical outflows, and/or associated outflows other than the initial adjustments needed to maintain a certain mental poise so as to remain relaxed yet alert, creating a conducive environment for mindful awareness of that clear state of non-distraction.

 

Tantric meditation can sometimes mean learning the art of getting used to being relaxed and unconcerned with seeming dualities, especially that of self and other, and all the other biased habitual tendencies that, by default, are rooted in the three times (past, present & future). With sufficient practice, these tendencies will loosen up, and one will begin to experience spontaneous bliss-like states arising, and slowly flowing out in no particular direction, eventually trickling down and permeating even the simplest of routines.

 

Now, its possible that one might not particularly note the subtle changes, nor should one be overly concerned of them, but those around can feel and see the transformation quite tangibly. Over time, these bliss-like states stabilise, and one is less and less affected by the grosser affairs that occur around the peripherals of one's awareness. 

 

There is a beauty associated with this inward journey - this beauty has nothing to do with mundane pleasure-seeking, and fulfilment of sense gratifications - its a beauty thats suffused with a grace and dignity that becomes more apparent as the layers of delusion begin to get peeled back. As it matures, the combined qualities, that of bliss, clarity and non-thought comes to the fore, and can be tangibly felt by others. Its paradoxical, but this maturity is suffused with child-like wonder, vulnerability and tenderness, not to be confused as signs of weakness - on the contrary, these are signs of ultimate resilience and unbreakable fortitude. Authentic tantric practice is often informed by such paradoxes, and yet, it is through becoming curious, vulnerable and tender that harmony prevails, seeping into ever-subtler levels of both waking and sleep consciousness.  

 

It can indeed be blissfully addictive, and the practitioner will do well to exercise vigilance lest one gets side-tracked and led astray by unfamiliar yet rather pleasurable states of being. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Thanks I have watched a little of her and she is an Immensely Enjoyable Wise Woman. Do you have affiliation with her?

I like her too. Not yet!

Share this post


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

 

...

 

Tantra isn't a about sex in the normal sense although it uses sexual imagery and indeed the Mahasiddhas saw 'emptiness' or sunyata as a naked 16 year old dancing girl and wrote love poems to her.  Which kind of nails the argument that emptiness is some boring rational philosophical concept as it is often portrayed these days.

 

Well said, but the naked dancing girl is more like a doorway to emptiness than emptiness itself. An establishment of polarity that helps to dissolve the issue and fears that ‚Äúobscure‚ÄĚ the broader realization.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

wrt the OP, there is something to be the said about ‚Äúpleasure-oriented‚ÄĚ vs ‚Äúmisery-oriented‚ÄĚ. I personally find the pleasure oriented personalities can miss the point, so to speak. Especially when there is an explosion of sexual energies which leads one to spend hours (sometimes better part of a day) in a state which I can only express as orgasmic. Only it is like an orgasm x 1000,000 (or more). It is hard to explain in words :)¬†

 

A less discriminative practitioner might start seeking that experience. But if transmuted properly, it can fuel the growth by quantum leaps and bounds. Imho, the key is whether the individual is grounded in and as pure awareness (as opposed to personality/mental identities).

 

In my experience when grasping/aversion and/or any form of linguistic thought arose the experience dissipated. It was very much a healing and learning experience in subtlety and expression of emptiness.

 

Perhaps a gift from the inner guru, or subconscious healing, or a boon from the mother. I do not know, and even now ascribing it to any one thing seems wrong.

 

My reason for sharing, is the experience arose in silence, and fell away with any grasping at "I", "this experience", "my pleasure", and in this would actually be a pretty darn good teaching (against grasping) for those attempting to re-experience past pleasure (arguably teaching them to be "grounded in pure awareness" to use your words).

 

Eventually the process "shifts", and moves upwards - naturally ime.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Well said, but the naked dancing girl is more like a doorway to emptiness than emptiness itself. An establishment of polarity that helps to dissolve the issue and fears that ‚Äúobscure‚ÄĚ the broader realization.

 

 

Maybe, a slightly abstract view though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Well said, but the naked dancing girl is more like a doorway to emptiness than emptiness itself. An establishment of polarity that helps to dissolve the issue and fears that ‚Äúobscure‚ÄĚ the broader realization.

 

Appearance and emptiness are not separate. The naked girl is an expression of emptiness, the dancing is an expression of the dynamic union of appearance and emptiness. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

 

Maybe, a slightly abstract view though.

 

Would this be dependent upon emptiness being separated from appearance? 

Share this post


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

 

Appearance and emptiness are not separate. The naked girl is an expression of emptiness, the dancing is an expression of the dynamic union of appearance and emptiness. 

 

The naked girl is a reflection/translation in "local" mind. It is a mental conceptualization of the underlying energy/light dynamics. Depending on the issues and fears that affect that local mind space, that dancing can also easily be conceptualized as sex instead.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Would this be dependent upon emptiness being separated from appearance? 

 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

 

In my experience when grasping/aversion and/or any form of linguistic thought arose the experience dissipated. It was very much a healing and learning experience in subtlety and expression of emptiness.

 

Perhaps a gift from the inner guru, or subconscious healing, or a boon from the mother. I do not know, and even now ascribing it to any one thing seems wrong.

 

My reason for sharing, is the experience arose in silence, and fell away with any grasping at "I", "this experience", "my pleasure", and in this would actually be a pretty darn good teaching (against grasping) for those attempting to re-experience past pleasure (arguably teaching them to be "grounded in pure awareness" to use your words).

 

Eventually the process "shifts", and moves upwards - naturally ime.

 

 

I would agree and some have trouble learning that lesson.

 

It feels good, you want to grasp on to it, to feel more of it but once you do it goes away.

 

It is a very powerful lesson in being open, non grasping and letting it flow through and of course once you learn that lesson things change and you don't feel it the same way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes 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.

 

Not really.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

The naked girl is a reflection/translation in "local" mind. It is a mental conceptualization of the underlying energy/light dynamics. Depending on the issues and fears that affect that local mind space, that dancing can also easily be conceptualized as sex instead.

 

:laughing:

 

In this she would/could signify the union of samsara and nirvana - simultaneously present and dependent upon the view.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dancing girl to me is just energy. Bliss may happen but it may not, also. 

 

As far as emptiness goes, there’s nothing to talk about there. :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The dancing girl to me is just energy. Bliss may happen but it may not, also. 

 

As far as emptiness goes, there’s nothing to talk about there. :D

 

 

Well said.  The girl is like the chalk upon the "emptiness" blackboard... :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Well said.  The girl is like the chalk upon the "emptiness" blackboard... :) 

 

 

Is the chalk empty or not?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Is the chalk empty or not?

 

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

Share this post


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

 

 

Is the chalk empty or not?

 

Good question :)

 

Emptiness is "no-thing-ness"... so is the chalk a "thing"? 

Edited by Fa Xin

Share this post


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

 

Good question :)

 

Emptiness is "no-thing-ness"... so is the chalk a "thing"? 

 

The chalk has form and form is empty.. think heart sutra. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

The chalk has form and form is empty.. think heart sutra. 

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites