Elements

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Elements

Postby Heruka » Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:10 am

Sherab wrote:It is very clear from the discussion here that Namdrol's knowledge of modern science is very weak.


no sherab-la, its helpful that we dont entangle QED into dzogchen or tantra.

namdrol is keeping out the conflating of seperate issues as i read through this thread.

i dont think he needs my help here, but again it was mentioned that if you can learn some tibetan embryology, it will help a good deal.


:namaste:
Heruka
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby Sherab » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:00 am

I think the quotes below should indicate very clearly that Namdrol's understanding of modern science is weak and that his claim that he has understood what I (and others) have said does not withstand scrutiny.

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
cloudburst wrote:So you ARE saying that which flows through the channels is Nitrogen, Oxygen etc?


Well, we don't breath anything else, do we?

What flows through the channels in our body is vāyu (air) that has been refined in our lungs.


Something doesn't make sense to me. What is a channel exactly? Air goes into the lungs, the oxygen is taken into blood stream. The yogic method of channels and winds uses channels that are not lungs or blood vessels. How the three channels meet at the base of the body is not connected to a cavity or passage where gas could travel.


Sherab wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Earth, air fire and water in one sense refer to the three states of matter with the presence or absence of heat being responsible for phase transition between states.

This replicates down no matter how far you go in physical reality.

It doesn't hold up in subatomic land. They really don't understand why there is solidity or what accounts for mass or solidity. They know about forces, but not how these forces create the illusion of solidity. They are basically attraction and repulsion.

Actually, it is those very forces that gives rise to the illusion of mass and solidity at the macro level.

Anyway, the concepts of solidity, motility and cohesion just don't apply at the subatomic level.

So either earth, air, fire etc are meant to represent something even more fundamental than quarks or they are merely convenient concepts for explicating certain phenomena by non-modern-day-scientists.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Elements

Postby Sherab » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:22 am

Earlier I mentioned
Sherab wrote:… words, such as solidity, motility etc, that are used to represent the Buddhist elements cannot possibly carry the same meaning when they are used in the context of modern science…


And if Namdrol should agree that "...earth, air, fire etc are meant to represent something even more fundamental than quarks... " the meaning of solidity, etc, as used to represent the Buddhist elements would not come close to what they meant in modern science.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Elements

Postby Enochian » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:33 am

Sherab wrote:used to represent the Buddhist elements would not come close to what they meant in modern science.



Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Elements

Postby username » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:56 am

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
cloudburst wrote:So you ARE saying that which flows through the channels is Nitrogen, Oxygen etc?


Well, we don't breath anything else, do we?

What flows through the channels in our body is vāyu (air) that has been refined in our lungs.


Something doesn't make sense to me. What is a channel exactly? Air goes into the lungs, the oxygen is taken into blood stream. The yogic method of channels and winds uses channels that are not lungs or blood vessels. How the three channels meet at the base of the body is not connected to a cavity or passage where gas could travel.


Sherab wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Earth, air fire and water in one sense refer to the three states of matter with the presence or absence of heat being responsible for phase transition between states.

This replicates down no matter how far you go in physical reality.

It doesn't hold up in subatomic land. They really don't understand why there is solidity or what accounts for mass or solidity. They know about forces, but not how these forces create the illusion of solidity. They are basically attraction and repulsion.

Actually, it is those very forces that gives rise to the illusion of mass and solidity at the macro level.

Anyway, the concepts of solidity, motility and cohesion just don't apply at the subatomic level.

So either earth, air, fire etc are meant to represent something even more fundamental than quarks or they are merely convenient concepts for explicating certain phenomena by non-modern-day-scientists.


Sherab wrote:I think the quotes below should indicate very clearly that Namdrol's understanding of modern science is weak and that his claim that he has understood what I (and others) have said does not withstand scrutiny.



I don't see the point in the red fonts specifically as half are end-of-section replies not by Namdrol which BTW don't make sense. I've heard other lamas saying they represent the 3 matter states & heat. I like to think of fire as all energy forms which can include heat and even plasma as the 4th exotic cosmic state. State matters has nothing to do with the ancient quest to split the smallest particle and now quarks. Even if it did there are many theories and one can as argued go on beyond that level too not to mention sub-types or Wave–particle duality debate or leptons or quantum wonderland theorieS relating to sub-types etc. etc. But sub-atomic scale quest is a different category to atomic formation of matter as state. Namdrol also said coarse and subtle aspects apply in the states and channels. Each of those two has different sub-levels too, like within the 3 kayas with subcategories. There is much to be discovered by science & TM/TCM/AYVRD or revealed by tantras. Ironically I just see incoherence in that post in the name of science, stylized in the 1920's Soviet Constructivist style, which is always effective and pretty, but now mainly used by ad agencies and still best suited for Propaganda.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Elements

Postby username » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:54 am

Also there are different and conflicting categorizations of nadis, pranas, chakras and bindus in different tantras and termas. So if we take one as definitive as some suggest here, it renders the rest invalid! But they all work and produce results. That is because they relate to very subtle levels as well and furthermore various consciousness levels, intentions and above all levels of finer wisdom awareness by the meditator and higher kayas come into play. Much to be discovered yet for millions of years to come or to be revealed and even more is undiscoverable beyond time/space/causality only accessible by a Buddha. But right now we only have a few more precious human years left which can end any night and it might be a very very long time before we have a chance to encounter high teachings again that if partly accomplished ensure favorable rebirth in the upper 3 realms to continue the path. So first things first.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Elements

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:56 am

adinatha wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Oh! So let's see if I can get this right. The Pali Canon Sutta do not include valid accounts of Buddha Shakyamunis life? Is this what you are saying?
:namaste:


That is exactly what I am saying. Because they contain a deluded account of his life.
So I will draw your attention to two points:
1. The sixth samaya downfall is to crticise any Dharma of the Sutra and Tantra teachings. (You may split hairs and say that it says Dharma and not Dhamma, but we know you will merely be splitting hairs)
2. You have provided NO scripture (and in this term I include Tantra) at all to support your thesis. Not even a Theravadra Sutta.

This leads me to conclude, that it is not the fact that I quoted a Pali Canon Sutta that caused your unwarranted dismissal of my post, but the fact that you are currently incapable of supplying any scripture that supports your position: Put up or shut up! :tongue:
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9597
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby Malcolm » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:40 pm

adinatha wrote:Something doesn't make sense to me. What is a channel exactly? Air goes into the lungs, the oxygen is taken into blood stream. The yogic method of channels and winds uses channels that are not lungs or blood vessels. How the three channels meet at the base of the body is not connected to a cavity or passage where gas could travel.


A channel is a channel: veins, arteries and nerves. You can add to this the lymphatic system, though they are considered to act as a support for bring moisture to the nervous system among their other functions.

A cakra in this view is any place in the body where there are clusters of arteries, veins and nerves. You can readily see five such clusters in the body. There are many more.

The channels we visualize are just a method -- why? because when we are visualizing ourselves as a deity, we visualize our bodies as completely hollow, made of light, with no internal organs.

The explicitly stated point of view of Tibetan Medicine is that the avadhūtī is all channels of air i.e. arteries; the rasanā is all channels of fire i.e. the blood vessels, and the lalanā all channels of water i.e. the nerves in the body. This is detailed at length by Zurkhar Lodo Gyalpo, is based primarily on the understanding of the anatomy of the body indicated by the Third Karmapa in his Zabmo Nangdon and reinforced by Desrid Sangye Gyatso. The latter two were both great Dzogchen masters as well though, Zurkharwa was not.

For example, the Kagyu Historian, Thubten Phunstog, has written an interesting commentaries on Tibetan Medicine, Six Yogas of Naropa, and well as Zabmo Nangdon. He makes the case that if channels are not physical structures in the body, then practices like gtum mo would have no effect. Then there is the very interesting doctor in Golok, Menpa Tenzin, who wrote a book based on doing many years of dissection of cadavers which contain very detailed drawings of his research. One may think this unnecessary given Netter's Anatomy and so on, but it is interesting -- and his dissections were guided from a Tibetan Medical perspective. He really explained this principle to us very well when we are interning in Xining. He is a disciple of Khenpo Munsel and In Tibet, he is a well respected Dzogchen master.

In reality, the three channels meet in each of these five (or six) locations in the body, according to the presentation I gave above from Kalackara. This simply means you will find clusters of arteries, veins and nerves at these locations in the body. Again, to restate, when we are doing deity yoga, our bodies are conceived to be hollow -- thus we visualize the channels in various ways depending on what system we are practicing. Hence, according Menpa Tenzin, et al, our visualization does not correspond with the manner in which the three channels actually exist in the body, and more importantly, it does not need to.

The reasons behind this again become very clear when one studies embryology according to Tibetan Medicine, Kalacakra, or Dzogchen Nyinthig. A very good book on this subject has been published by Francis Garret.

However, again, in the West, our idea of ṇāḍis has been very influenced by the acupuncture idea of "meridians" as well as Hindu ideas of cakras and ṇāḍis. The Upanishadic idea of cakras and ṇāḍis is related to the concept of pañcakośa originating in the Taittiriya Upanisha (which makes this idea a bit older than the Buddha's teaching), where they are explicitly connected with the prāṇamayakośa. On the other hand, the Upanishads are very important to understand, because they contain many ideas and concepts which reappear in altered form (i.e. revised in accordance with Buddha ideas) in Vajrayāna, Ayurveda/Tibetan Medicine, and even in Dzogchen.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12024
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Elements

Postby adinatha » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:29 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
adinatha wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Oh! So let's see if I can get this right. The Pali Canon Sutta do not include valid accounts of Buddha Shakyamunis life? Is this what you are saying?
:namaste:


That is exactly what I am saying. Because they contain a deluded account of his life.
So I will draw your attention to two points:
1. The sixth samaya downfall is to crticise any Dharma of the Sutra and Tantra teachings. (You may split hairs and say that it says Dharma and not Dhamma, but we know you will merely be splitting hairs)
2. You have provided NO scripture (and in this term I include Tantra) at all to support your thesis. Not even a Theravadra Sutta.

This leads me to conclude, that it is not the fact that I quoted a Pali Canon Sutta that caused your unwarranted dismissal of my post, but the fact that you are currently incapable of supplying any scripture that supports your position: Put up or shut up! :tongue:
:namaste:


The following comes from Longchenpa quoting Atiyoga sources:
Why do we say that everything is mind?
Mind is the source and multiplicity is mind.
Can buddha arise as product
or sentient beings evolve into buddhas?
Take charcoal for example--we can polish it,
but try as we may it does not become white;
in the same way, deluded beings,
though they practice endless meditation,
can never become buddha.


This is just one example. This belongs to the realm of inner meaning. There is no appearance of Buddha and to buddha there is no appearance. For the sentient being...

Babes unable to understand the definitive meaning,
say that appearances are their own mind,
which is like mistaking brass for gold.


Because...

If we seek the essence in derivative phenomena,
each aspect, deconstructed, unfocused, is display--
the essence manifest is nothing other than pure being,
As we integrate with the unitary atom, utterly unpatterned,
awareness of non specific reality is self-sprung,
the essence that is wide-open, direct nonconceptual perception,
and sustaining that immaculate process sovereign sameness is attained.
Unchanging and unchangeable, nothing is there to desire,
and with nothing to hold on to, not even a mind.


1. All prior scriptures are not first person buddha perspective; they are deluded perspective. 2. I can't violate any samaya, because I have no samaya to keep, other than the nature of mind which is impossible to break. I'm talking about the Apex, not some method or routine from the standpoint of a someone with distorted vision. I'm sorry if I sound gruff: I don't want the inner secret to be lost or diluted. Total freedom is a right, but still a right one has to earn by letting everything go, even dharma.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Elements

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:40 pm

Needless to say the texts you quote are almost completely irrelevant to the point we were discussing OR so completely secretly bloody relevant that their relevance was lost on this ignorant fool!
:namaste:
PS How's the view from the Apex then? Any chance of climbing down and joining us lowly drop-kicks (an Australianism)?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9597
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby Mr. G » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:46 pm

Namdrol wrote: Again, to restate, when we are doing deity yoga, our bodies are conceived to be hollow -- thus we visualize the channels in various ways depending on what system we are practicing. Hence, according Menpa Tenzin, et al, our visualization does not correspond with the manner in which the three channels actually exist in the body, and more importantly, it does not need to.


Hi Namdrol,

If one is visualizing the channels incorrectly, then is this not a problem? Would this be an issue that would affect one's practice?
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Elements

Postby Malcolm » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:53 pm

adinatha wrote:
1. All prior scriptures are not first person buddha perspective; they are deluded perspective. 2. I can't violate any samaya, because I have no samaya to keep, other than the nature of mind which is impossible to break. I'm talking about the Apex, not some method or routine from the standpoint of a someone with distorted vision. I'm sorry if I sound gruff: I don't want the inner secret to be lost or diluted. Total freedom is a right, but still a right one has to earn by letting everything go, even dharma.


Longchepa also writes in the Ocean of Liberation from the Lama Yangthig:

"Now then, although there is nothing to damage or transgress, the natural great perfection being beyond a boundary to protect, since it is necessary for yogins on the path of practice to abide in commitments, in order to purify one’s continuum there are the three root commitments.There are twenty five branch commitments as well i.e. what to understand, what not to avoid,what to adopt, how to act, what to accomplish which are taught in the great tantras. The branch comittments are taught as mere assistants for protecting the root commitments since they possess accepting and rejecting, effort and practice."

This itself is a commentary on the more elaborate commentary concerning Dzogchen samaya in the Vima sNying thig, the Analysis of Samaya. It says:

"If one dwells in the samayas of the body, it will not be difficult to obtain the unchanging body vajra of all the buddas. If one dwells in the samayas of the voice, it will not be difficult to obtain the unchanging speech vajra of all the buddas. If one dwells in the samayas of the mind, it will not be difficult to obtain the unchanging mind vajra of all the buddas."

As for Greg's point, Longchenpa here states that among the 27 root commitments (9*3):

"The outer of the inner [is not to ridicule] speaking the words of the teachings..."

This certainly means that while one may not find a given passage relevant to one's own condition, one should not hubristically dismiss the teachings of the Buddha as if they are as you put it "...from a deluded perspective." All Buddhist teachings are for deluded people, yes, even all Dzogchen texts. From that perspective, even Dzogchen tantras are from a deluded perspective. This is not to say of course there are not teachings for people of greater and lesser delusion. This is not to say that we need to follow Nikaya teachings as if they are of the same value as Dzogchen teachings, etc. But that depends on the practitioner. If someone does not have transmission, than all Dzogchen texts are meaningless aside from being used as bhakti objects.

Undeluded people do not need teachings of any kind. They also are in great or total samaya, always. total samaya is just another word for "dzogchen", mahāsaṃdhi or santimāha in the lanuage of Oḍḍiyāna.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12024
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby Malcolm » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:57 pm

mr. gordo wrote:
Namdrol wrote: Again, to restate, when we are doing deity yoga, our bodies are conceived to be hollow -- thus we visualize the channels in various ways depending on what system we are practicing. Hence, according Menpa Tenzin, et al, our visualization does not correspond with the manner in which the three channels actually exist in the body, and more importantly, it does not need to.


Hi Namdrol,

If one is visualizing the channels incorrectly, then is this not a problem? Would this be an issue that would affect one's practice?


In Sakya, for example, they place great emphasis on visualizing the channels very precisely. In Dzogchen, according to the Khandro Nyinthig, it is enough to have an idea of the channels. The same is true for deity yoga and the same difference applies.

However, you must apply the method of the system you are practicing. So for example, of you are practicing Naro Khachö it is considered very important to have a very precise visualization, very clear, very vivid. You apply the method of the school which you are following at any given time for any given practice.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12024
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby adinatha » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:00 pm

Namdrol wrote:In reality, the three channels meet in each of these five (or six) locations in the body, according to the presentation I gave above from Kalackara. This simply means you will find clusters of arteries, veins and nerves at these locations in the body. Again, to restate, when we are doing deity yoga, our bodies are conceived to be hollow -- thus we visualize the channels in various ways depending on what system we are practicing. Hence, according Menpa Tenzin, et al, our visualization does not correspond with the manner in which the three channels actually exist in the body, and more importantly, it does not need to.

The reasons behind this again become very clear when one studies embryology according to Tibetan Medicine, Kalacakra, or Dzogchen Nyinthig. A very good book on this subject has been published by Francis Garret.


That was very clear and descriptive. Thank you. I'm very interested in the highlighted portion. Can you please explain that just a bit more. Why do our visualizations not need to correspond to the way these actual exist in the body?
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Elements

Postby adinatha » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:03 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Needless to say the texts you quote are almost completely irrelevant to the point we were discussing OR so completely secretly bloody relevant that their relevance was lost on this ignorant fool!
:namaste:
PS How's the view from the Apex then? Any chance of climbing down and joining us lowly drop-kicks (an Australianism)?


Sorry no chance. In fact, you have no chance either. You nature is the Apex. Purifying and accomplishing is bloody nonsense mate. I'm a bloody blasphemer, and a crazy fool.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Elements

Postby gnegirl » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:06 pm

adinatha wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Needless to say the texts you quote are almost completely irrelevant to the point we were discussing OR so completely secretly bloody relevant that their relevance was lost on this ignorant fool!
:namaste:
PS How's the view from the Apex then? Any chance of climbing down and joining us lowly drop-kicks (an Australianism)?


Sorry no chance. In fact, you have no chance either. You nature is the Apex. Purifying and accomplishing is bloody nonsense mate. I'm a bloody blasphemer, and a crazy fool.


And what about View, Meditation and Conduct?
"Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise." --Surangama Sutra

Phenomenon, vast as space, dharmata is your base, arising and falling like ocean tide cycles, why do i cling to your illusion of unceasing changlessness?
User avatar
gnegirl
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Waponi Woo

Re: Elements

Postby adinatha » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:11 pm

gnegirl wrote:
adinatha wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Needless to say the texts you quote are almost completely irrelevant to the point we were discussing OR so completely secretly bloody relevant that their relevance was lost on this ignorant fool!
:namaste:
PS How's the view from the Apex then? Any chance of climbing down and joining us lowly drop-kicks (an Australianism)?


Sorry no chance. In fact, you have no chance either. You nature is the Apex. Purifying and accomplishing is bloody nonsense mate. I'm a bloody blasphemer, and a crazy fool.


And what about View, Meditation and Conduct?


You mean the one's you don't see and don't do? Nothing.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby Mr. G » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:13 pm

Namdrol wrote:
In Sakya, for example, they place great emphasis on visualizing the channels very precisely. In Dzogchen, according to the Khandro Nyinthig, it is enough to have an idea of the channels. The same is true for deity yoga and the same difference applies.

However, you must apply the method of the system you are practicing. So for example, of you are practicing Naro Khachö it is considered very important to have a very precise visualization, very clear, very vivid. You apply the method of the school which you are following at any given time for any given practice.

N


OK, understood. That was very helpful. Thank you.
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby Malcolm » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:14 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:In reality, the three channels meet in each of these five (or six) locations in the body, according to the presentation I gave above from Kalackara. This simply means you will find clusters of arteries, veins and nerves at these locations in the body. Again, to restate, when we are doing deity yoga, our bodies are conceived to be hollow -- thus we visualize the channels in various ways depending on what system we are practicing. Hence, according Menpa Tenzin, et al, our visualization does not correspond with the manner in which the three channels actually exist in the body, and more importantly, it does not need to.

The reasons behind this again become very clear when one studies embryology according to Tibetan Medicine, Kalacakra, or Dzogchen Nyinthig. A very good book on this subject has been published by Francis Garret.


That was very clear and descriptive. Thank you. I'm very interested in the highlighted portion. Can you please explain that just a bit more. Why do our visualizations not need to correspond to the way these actual exist in the body?


Well, it is because our visualization of our bodies as deities also does not correspond to our bodies in a real sense either. For example, when we visualize ourselves as Vajrasattva, in Vajrasattvas body there is no heart, no lungs, no liver, spleen/pancreas or kidney, no stomach, intestines, gall bladder, urinary bladder, ovaries or seminal vesicle, etc.

We primarily use the three channels as a visualization guide for the prāṇa vāyu in our bodies that we breath in. For example, we use the visualization of the lower ends of the three channels to focus our attention below the belly, for example -- through muscular contraction of the mulabandha and the uddiyāna bandhas we collect and force vāyu into arterial system and cause it to supersaturate our cells, capillaries, etc. with vāyu and ojas (the real bodhicitta element within our body) that it pumps. Simultaneously, our heart rate slows, and this means for a time not only is our consciousness "slowing down" i.e. because the karma vāyus are now suspended, but the venous blood is returning less impurities into the blood stream temporarily while the ojas is flushing and restoring the cells. This is why Khumbaka, for example, is the hidden secret to longevity in both Hatha Yoga of the Nathas, and in Vajrayāna. Through the two lower locks, we slow blood flow into the vena cava, saturate blood with prāṇa vāyu and send it into the arteries, etc. Ojas itself has two stores within the body -- the heart and also the brain. This is why we do the visualization of blazing and dripping, etc.

This is just a rough approximation.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12024
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

Postby adinatha » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:31 pm

Namdrol wrote:We primarily use the three channels as a visualization guide for the prāṇa vāyu in our bodies that we breath in. For example, we use the visualization of the lower ends of the three channels to focus our attention below the belly, for example -- through muscular contraction of the mulabandha and the uddiyāna bandhas we collect and force vāyu into arterial system and cause it to supersaturate our cells, capillaries, etc. with vāyu and ojas (the real bodhicitta element within our body) that it pumps. Simultaneously, our heart rate slows, and this means for a time not only is our consciousness "slowing down" i.e. because the karma vāyus are now suspended, but the venous blood is returning less impurities into the blood stream temporarily while the ojas is flushing and restoring the cells. This is why Khumbaka, for example, is the hidden secret to longevity in both Hatha Yoga of the Nathas, and in Vajrayāna. Through the two lower locks, we slow blood flow into the vena cava, saturate blood with prāṇa vāyu and send it into the arteries, etc. Ojas itself has two stores within the body -- the heart and also the brain. This is why we do the visualization of blazing and dripping, etc.

This is just a rough approximation.


Okay so at this point, in the blazing and dripping procedure the yogi's ojas translates to bliss right? Why bliss? Also, bliss is nondependently originated as in the bliss, clarity and nonthought inseparable from rigpa, no? Intense bliss arise also in guru yoga. I'm trying to get at this connection.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: monktastic and 29 guests

>