Dharma Wheel

padma norbu wrote:

tatpurusa wrote:All aspects of the empirical world are magic, if you are a tantra practitioner.
So what?

How would you define "magic" in this sense?

Not having an inherent reality, but depending on the mind (as in cittamatra)
Tantra ("instrument of weaving") is the science of tricking the mind into creating "reality" following sutra (=line, yarn) instead of karma.

tatpurusa wrote:

padma norbu wrote:

tatpurusa wrote:All aspects of the empirical world are magic, if you are a tantra practitioner.
So what?

How would you define "magic" in this sense?

Not having an inherent reality, but depending on the mind (as in cittamatra)
Tantra ("instrument of weaving") is the science of tricking the mind into creating "reality" following sutra (=line, yarn) instead of karma.

I think see what you're saying, but that doesn't seem to really fit with option A (It's a sign!).
Where did you get that definition of tantra, btw?

padma norbu wrote:

tatpurusa wrote: Not having an inherent reality, but depending on the mind (as in cittamatra)
Tantra ("instrument of weaving") is the science of tricking the mind into creating "reality" following sutra (=line, yarn) instead of karma.

I think see what you're saying, but that doesn't seem to really fit with option A (It's a sign!).
Where did you get that definition of tantra, btw?

Cittamatra

tatpurusa wrote:

padma norbu wrote:

tatpurusa wrote: Not having an inherent reality, but depending on the mind (as in cittamatra)
Tantra ("instrument of weaving") is the science of tricking the mind into creating "reality" following sutra (=line, yarn) instead of karma.

I think see what you're saying, but that doesn't seem to really fit with option A (It's a sign!).
Where did you get that definition of tantra, btw?

Cittamatra

Link / source with your exact definition or even an approximation about "science of tricking the mind into creating 'reality' following sutra instead of karma"?

padma norbu wrote:

tatpurusa wrote: Cittamatra

Link / source with your exact definition or even an approximation about "science of tricking the mind into creating 'reality' following sutra instead of karma"?

Svacittaja
It's just 40 years of experience and a study of indology ..

tatpurusa wrote:

padma norbu wrote:

tatpurusa wrote: Cittamatra

Link / source with your exact definition or even an approximation about "science of tricking the mind into creating 'reality' following sutra instead of karma"?

Svacittaja

I think what it is about is changing your perception of the world. I guess that could become "it's a sign!" thinking, but... oh, I guess I don't want to open this can of worms.

padma norbu wrote: I think what it is about is changing your perception of the world. I guess that could become "it's a sign!" thinking, but... oh, I guess I don't want to open this can of worms.

Tantra should not, by any means, be confused with superstition.

tatpurusa wrote:

padma norbu wrote: I think what it is about is changing your perception of the world. I guess that could become "it's a sign!" thinking, but... oh, I guess I don't want to open this can of worms.

Tantra should not, by any means, be confused with superstition.

Until you link up something that actually backs up your chosen definition, I have no interest in discussing this further.

padma norbu wrote:

tatpurusa wrote:

padma norbu wrote: I think what it is about is changing your perception of the world. I guess that could become "it's a sign!" thinking, but... oh, I guess I don't want to open this can of worms.

Tantra should not, by any means, be confused with superstition.

Until you link up something that actually backs up your chosen definition, I have no interest in discussing this further.

Haha, no problem, I am not interested in discussing it either. I meant it rather as a suggestion.
Anyway, just learn sanskrit and practice tantra, then you'll see.

PS.: svacittaja means "born out of one's own mind"

I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. I was interested in hearing more about your ideas and you came back with one-word answers. I have work to do today, so I'm not interested in spending the whole day researching your one-word answers and deciding if my research coincides with your definition.

"Anyway, just learn sanskrit and practice tantra, then you'll see."

LOL

padma norbu wrote:I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. I was interested in hearing more about your ideas and you came back with one-word answers. I have work to do today, so I'm not interested in spending the whole day researching your one-word answers and deciding if my research coincides with your definition.

"Anyway, just learn sanskrit and practice tantra, then you'll see."

LOL

np

For a little background on where I'm coming from, I made a thread recently called "Why the HELL is it so easy to forget" about my inability to remember dharma, but I recall reading about the mind-only school and Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka criticisms of it, so I don't think the definition of tantra is found exclusively in your one-word answers... and I've never seen anything remotely like your definition of tantra before. It sounds more like a western occultist's definition of tantra.

Tantra is not exclusive to Cittamatra.

Funny, I don't have a definition for tantra. Sounds like Malcolm's area of expertise to me.

padma norbu wrote:For a little background on where I'm coming from, I made a thread recently called "Why the HELL is it so easy to forget" about my inability to remember dharma, but I recall reading about the mind-only school and Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka criticisms of it, so I don't think the definition of tantra is found exclusively in your one-word answers... and I've never seen anything remotely like your definition of tantra before. It sounds more like a western occultist's definition of tantra.

Sorry, but I cannot be a Western occultist, even if you'd like me to be one.

smcj wrote:Tantra is not exclusive to Cittamatra.

Funny, I don't have a definition for tantra. Sounds like Malcolm's area of expertise to me.

Of course not.
Both cittamatra and madhyamika have their say there, and it depends on the particular tradition, and the particular individual which view is more emphasized.
Besides, already in India there were tentatives to reconcile yogacara with madhyamika. In tantra one can also find interpretations based of this reconciled view.
Nevertheless, yogacara continues to exist, and the very name of tantra points to that origin.

padma norbu wrote:I've never seen anything remotely like your definition of tantra before. It sounds more like a western occultist's definition of tantra.

It looks to me like a fairly standard (and obvious) way of describing tantra.

Cittamatra and Madhymaka are ideas. Tantra is an activity. Apples and oranges.

This is beginning to bug me. I should know this.

My personal assumption is that tantra comprises deity yoga practices and tsa-lung practices, with perhaps Mahamudra and Dzogchen thrown in for good measure. But that's not definitive, just my personal perspective.

Next stop: Wiki.

smcj wrote:Cittamatra and Madhymaka are ideas. Tantra is an activity. Apples and oranges.

This is beginning to bug me. I should know this.

My personal assumption is that tantra comprises deity yoga practices and tsa-lung practices, with perhaps Mahamudra and Dzogchen thrown in for good measure. But that's not definitive, just my personal perspective.

Next stop: Wiki.

Yes, cittamatra and madhyamika are views or philosophies, tantra is the practice that has those views as its base.
Dzogchen is not a part of Tantra, but an independent system with its own proper view, different from both cittamatra and madhyamika.
Both Tantra and Dzogchen have the experience of nature of mind as their fundament, but the methods are completely different.

Wiki let me down. The only definition I found there was:

Tantra is defined as an inner realization that functions to prevent ordinary appearances and conceptions and to accomplish the four complete purities of a Buddha (environment, body, enjoyments and deeds)

That's lame, IMO.

Dzogchen is not a part of Tantra, but an independent system with its own proper view.

Atiyoga is tantra, which includes tantric Dzogchen. I'm not into Dzogchen, but the kind that isn't Atiyoga I think of as Sutrayana. Same for Mahamudra outside of tantra. Others may disagree.

futerko wrote:

padma norbu wrote:I've never seen anything remotely like your definition of tantra before. It sounds more like a western occultist's definition of tantra.

It looks to me like a fairly standard (and obvious) way of describing tantra.

Do you have any links or sources to back that up, then? Words are so easy to misunderstand. I'd like to read a bit more from any source that says that. I've just read quite a bit about tantra fairly recently and didn't see anything like that described.