Elements

[cloudburst]

If you read the discussion carefully, you will see that you are precisely making my point here, please direct this comment to Namdrol.

This is a given. Non-controversial. Within the body there are five elemental vāyus. All material phenomena contain all four elements in some proportion. I was under the impression I was not talking to Buddhist Kindegardeners where every detail has to spelled out in order to prevent someone from having an objection.

N

Buddhists don't have kindergarden (sic), but name calling would be a sure sign of being there if we did.

[cloudburst]

If you read the discussion carefully, you will see that you are precisely making my point here, please direct this comment to Namdrol.

I have read the discussion carefully! So why then are you carrying on "like a two bob watch" about whether farting or ejaculating has to do with air? If you understand the abovementioned basics and the fact that both the above activities have to do with motion, then obviously there will be a fair amount of air involved. Where is your (soya) beef?

the discussion is about whether the inner winds are identical in substance to the outer winds. That is Namdrol's contention. Whether or not "there will be a fair amt of air involved" would depend upon what you mean by air...wind? What precisely that is is that which is under discussion.

In any case I agree with you about the watch, i will cease and desist. My beef is elsewhere.

Thanks.

[gregkavarnos]

the discussion is about whether the inner winds are identical in substance to the outer winds. That is Namdrol's contention. Whether or not "there will be a fair amt of air involved" would depend upon what you mean by air...wind? What precisely that is is that which is under discussion.

Now you are being clear. Do you have a citation to "prove" that they are not identical?

[adinatha]

Of course it does.

How? ...

Because there is motility, solidity, heat, and moisture (cohesion) even at these levels of observation.

I'm sorry but my understanding is that at this level, there are only clouds of probabilities. If you can provide evidence that supports your assertion, I would really appreciate it.

[adinatha]

N: The idea that prāṇa is some universal life force is exactly the new age idea that I am criticizing.

I get it - the non-universal notion - not sure I agree yet. Will have to look again at the Chi of China & Prana of Indian thought for support for non-universal notion. Prana is in the Sun for example, where there is no air or breath.

I agree with Namdrol on this. The prana is what vayu becomes when it interacts with the other elements in the body. The case of yogis in the ground or under water is because, like yogis who can go without food, can go without air. It's not that they are getting prana from the universe. They are not getting prana, because they have weened themselves off of it. The dharmakaya is self-sustaining in the yogic sense that when you are not dependent on anything, you don't rely on elements or the functionality of thing that change.

[gregkavarnos]

I agree with Namdrol on this. The prana is what vayu becomes when it interacts with the other elements in the body. The case of yogis in the ground or under water is because, like yogis who can go without food, can go without air. It's not that they are getting prana from the universe. They are not getting prana, because they have weened themselves off of it. The dharmakaya is self-sustaining in the yogic sense that when you are not dependent on anything, you don't rely on elements or the functionality of thing that change.

I get the feeling tht you ar mixing things up a little (lot) here. You cannot remove the physical bodies dependence on sustenance. You can reduce it to next to nothing but you cannot remove it completely. From rupa to Dharmakaya is a mighty big step! As long as you want to maintain a projected/illusory self in the realm of form you need to sustain it. Shakyamuni Buddha continued to eat after his enlightenment. Even if you take the Mahayana road and say he was enlightened already and merely projected an illusory self into this sphere of existence for our benefit, the illusory self still needed illusory sustenance in order to continue its illusory existence. Just not as much as others!

[cloudburst]

the discussion is about whether the inner winds are identical in substance to the outer winds. That is Namdrol's contention. Whether or not "there will be a fair amt of air involved" would depend upon what you mean by air...wind? What precisely that is is that which is under discussion.

Now you are being clear.

Do you have a citation to "prove" that they are not identical?

no, it's not something I'm tying to maintain as fact. I used the term "energy winds," a term that indicates we are talking inner not outer winds. Namdrol didn't like the term and claimed "energy" is unnecessary since inner and outer winds are identical, just air. He may be right, I do not know, but it seems unlikely to me, and I tried to make some arguments to show why. I have little to prove, and less to prove it with. It was just fun for me. Hope not too taxing for others. I will desist since I think I've got the gist of what is on offer. Thanks, gregkavarnos.

[adinatha]

Since this conversation steered into some hardcore tantric stuff, I was just wondering if there are any Buddhist commentators on Hindu spiral type kundalini. I know buddhism does not accept the spiral type kundalini, but my understanding was that learned buddhist scholars, like Atisa, wrote about all sorts of tantric topics including Hindusim.

You might be disappointed to learn that the Buddhist take on Hindu tantra is that they only practice attachment to feeling (vedana). From the Buddhist standpoint, the Hindu tantric is in a big dream.

[cloudburst]

the discussion is about whether the inner winds are identical in substance to the outer winds. That is Namdrol's contention. Whether or not "there will be a fair amt of air involved" would depend upon what you mean by air...wind? What precisely that is is that which is under discussion.

Now you are being clear.

Do you have a citation to "prove" that they are not identical?

no, it's not something I'm tying to maintain as fact. I used the term "energy winds," a term that indicates we are talking inner not outer winds. Namdrol didn't like the term and claimed "energy" is unnecessary since inner and outer winds are identical, just air. He may be right, I do not know, but it seems unlikely to me, and I tried to make some arguments to show why. I have little to prove, and less to prove it with. It was just fun for me. Hope not too taxing for others. I will desist since I think I've got the gist of what is on offer. Thanks, gregkavarnos.

ps-

any discussion of Tsongkhapa and Dzogchen ended pages ago, maybe discussion should be moved....?

[adinatha]

I agree with Namdrol on this. The prana is what vayu becomes when it interacts with the other elements in the body. The case of yogis in the ground or under water is because, like yogis who can go without food, can go without air. It's not that they are getting prana from the universe. They are not getting prana, because they have weened themselves off of it. The dharmakaya is self-sustaining in the yogic sense that when you are not dependent on anything, you don't rely on elements or the functionality of thing that change.

I get the feeling tht you ar mixing things up a little (lot) here. You cannot remove the physical bodies dependence on sustenance. You can reduce it to next to nothing but you cannot remove it completely. From rupa to Dharmakaya is a mighty big step! As long as you want to maintain a projected/illusory self in the realm of form you need to sustain it. Shakyamuni Buddha continued to eat after his enlightenment. Even if you take the Mahayana road and say he was enlightened already and merely projected an illusory self into this sphere of existence for our benefit, the illusory self still needed illusory sustenance in order to continue its illusory existence. Just not as much as others!

There are yogis who can go their entire lives without food or water. I'm not saying they can go forever and ever, at least not until enlightenment. What do you think the body of light is? A body of light is not just sambhogakaya. It is all three kayas complete. People who talk like the kayas appear separately are talking from a deluded mind perspective. It is a body not dependent on any external factor. It is immortality. A Buddha, a nirmanakaya, is way beyond what you are implying here that it requires food. The Buddha ate and acted in accordance with his teaching to benefit those people at that time and place and to spin the wheel of dharma for future generations. All his worldly actions are only in the eyes of the practitioners. To the Buddha none of these appearances of eating or sickness ever arise.

[gregkavarnos]

I suggest you read my post again, a litle more carefully.

[adinatha]

I suggest you read my post again, a litle more carefully.

We don't share the same view about the nirmanakaya. People talk here about illusory like it's synonymous with real. Everyone needs to crack that shell around here. Conventional dharmas are the training wheels. When you reach enlightenment in one life, you don't need food, water, air, warmth or space. You are beyond these limits. What then appears to trainees is a dream. Period.

[gregkavarnos]

"Illusory" is synonymous with what the ignorant perceive as "real".

[adinatha]

"Illusory" is synonymous with what the ignorant perceive as "real".

Good so you should be able to see quite clearly why the Buddha's body did not require sustenance. You recall the Buddha told Ananda that if Ananda had asked him a third time not to die, he would have stopped dying.

[Malcolm]

Your claim that the inner winds are the same as the outer winds has not been borne out, despite various lines of argument. That is my contention.

My claim is that the winds in the body are based on the process of respiration. I never asserted that they do not undergo change and refinement in the body, of course they do. The function of the lungs is to bring air into body and pass it into the channels, refining it along the way. This vāyu, like any other of the four elements that are taken up by the body, undergoes a process of digestion. Breath is a kind of food. This is why we have rasāyanas of air, which involve prāṇayāma practices to extract the rasa of the vāyu directly and so on.

Anyway, this understanding comes from Tibetan Medicine. For example, one of my teachers, Tamdrin Gyal from Amdo, when explaining topics from Rangjung Dorje's famed Zabmo Nangdon to us asserted that while the vāyu/vatta of the body comes from external element of air conducted into the body through breathing, the air element outside the of body does not possess all seven characteristics of vāyu present in the body i.e, rough, light, cold, motile, subtle and hard.

When we talk about the five elements in the body, we always refer to them as the five refined elements. But, for example, Padmsambhava is very clear that the five refined elements in the body come from the five gross elements upon which we depend for life.

N

[cloudburst]

Your claim that the inner winds are the same as the outer winds has not been borne out, despite various lines of argument. That is my contention.

My claim is that the winds in the body are based on the process of respiration. I never asserted that they do not undergo change and refinement in the body, of course they do. The function of the lungs is to bring air into body and pass it into the channels, refining it along the way. This vāyu, like any other of the four elements that are taken up by the body, undergoes a process of digestion. Breath is a kind of food. This is why we have rasāyanas of air, which involve prāṇayāma practices to extract the rasa of the vāyu directly and so on.

Anyway, this understanding comes from Tibetan Medicine. For example, one of my teachers, Tamdrin Gyal from Amdo, when explaining topics from Rangjung Dorje's famed Zabmo Nangdon to us asserted that while the vāyu/vatta of the body comes from external element of air conducted into the body through breathing, the air element outside the of body does not possess all seven characteristics of vāyu present in the body i.e, rough, light, cold, motile, subtle and hard.

When we talk about the five elements in the body, we always refer to them as the five refined elements. But, for example, Padmsambhava is very clear that the five refined elements in the body come from the five gross elements upon which we depend for life.

N

Thank you.

[Will]

N: The idea that prāṇa is some universal life force is exactly the new age idea that I am criticizing.

I get it - the non-universal notion - not sure I agree yet. Will have to look again at the Chi of China & Prana of Indian thought for support for non-universal notion. Prana is in the Sun for example, where there is no air or breath.

New Age is full of hooey - but in the case of cosmic or universal prana notion - they are innocent. The Upanishads taught it - not saying they are right, just a universal prana teaching goes way, way back.

[adinatha]

Of course it does.

How? ...

Because there is motility, solidity, heat, and moisture (cohesion) even at these levels of observation.

I'm sorry but my understanding is that at this level, there are only clouds of probabilities. If you can provide evidence that supports your assertion, I would really appreciate it.

I will answer myself and refute you. Solidity in matter is an illusion caused by the spinning an electron, which creates an energetic cloud, and thus the mere appearance of solidity. There is no solidity in fact. It is just a charge. A charge is just a positive or negative. An electron is not technically a particle. So there is no atomic solidity.

At the level of subatomic particles, the are spins and lower than that waves. Not a wave in the motion sense. But a wave in the geometric sense. One can never detect motion and position simultaneously at this level. Again, no solidity. There is also no mass. Quantum people have no idea what accounts for mass. All they have are mathematical models.

Without motion, solidity or mass, the whole phenomenal world collapses. So there is certainly no possibility of observing liquidity, gaseousness or heat. At this level even space is not space. It all converges with information: constants and probabilities.

What does remain are charges: Positive (attracting), negative (repelling) and neither (neutral). These do have a correspondence with the three poisons. To my satisfaction, this here provides perfect explanatory and experiential understanding of why consciousness arises as an interdependence of these three things, why there is no such thing as a universal consciousness, and why there is liberation.

[Malcolm]

N: The idea that prāṇa is some universal life force is exactly the new age idea that I am criticizing.

I get it - the non-universal notion - not sure I agree yet. Will have to look again at the Chi of China & Prana of Indian thought for support for non-universal notion. Prana is in the Sun for example, where there is no air or breath.

New Age is full of hooey - but in the case of cosmic or universal prana notion - they are innocent. The Upanishads taught it - not saying they are right, just a universal prana teaching goes way, way back.

It depends on whether you take the Brihadaryanka as allegorical (it is) or literally.

N

[Will]

Will: New Age is full of hooey - but in the case of cosmic or universal prana notion - they are innocent. The Upanishads taught it - not saying they are right, just a universal prana teaching goes way, way back.

Namdrol: It depends on whether you take the Brihadaryanka as allegorical (it is) or literally.

So the Prasna http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/prasna.html and the Chandogya are also allegorical?

Fiddlesticks - Swamis teach cosmic, universal prana all the time.