How practical is consort practice for the majority?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:28 pm

kirtu wrote:
But that conduct wasn't even real. It was just a vision seen by some people. Others saw other things (lamps, etc.).

Kirt


You can beleive whatever you like, Kirt.

He was also hanging out with prostitutes in bars before he got bounced from the monastery.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby wayland » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:12 pm

Namdrol wrote:
wayland wrote:Is it merely a case of imagination and visualization?


Jñ̄ānamudra is a visualized consort.

Thanks Namdrol,
I had a look around, as I seem to recall having read about a manifested consort. I found the following:
The four types of Karmamudrās

Karma Mudrā A maiden possessing the physical attributes of a woman, for dull yogis.
Jñāna Mudrā A maiden created through the power of one's visualization, for middling yogis.
Mahā Mudrā The images within one's own mind spontaneously arise as various consorts, for sharp yogis.
Samaya Mudrā The mudra experienced as a result of accomplishing the former three.

These are usually termed the 'four handseals' with only the last one called mahamudra. There are various lists, usually some combination of the following: Action Mudra (Karmamudra), Wisdom Mudra (Jnanamudra), Phenomena Mudra (Dharmamudra), Pledge Mudra (Samayamudra), and Great Mudra(Mahamudra). Action mudra is a woman, phenomena mudra is all appearance, commitment or pledge mudra is tummo, wisdom mudra is the meditation deity, and non-duality is the great mudra.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/six-yogas- ... z1imz5TVsB

In this list the kind of thing I mean is described as a Mahā Mudrā. Would this also include a consort which appears to the yogi during the dream state?

Namaste
wayland
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:21 pm

Namdrol wrote:He was also hanging out with prostitutes in bars before he got bounced from the monastery.


Like Jesus. ;)

Wayland, I've heard of the possibility of achieving the privilege of a Dakini being ones consort. Perhaps even in the physical dimension, or maybe during Dream Yoga. Of course in the latter situation especially, it's possible, even likely, that we could take our own subjective mental projections to be an actual Dakini; such a case resulting in mental-masturbation rather than high level consort practice (that is if we're not objectively visualizing as in Jnanamudra) So better not to fantasize (a reminder to myself more than anything). Although there's nothing necessarily wrong with enquiring about these things. Thanks for posting that perspective on the Five Mudras by the way. :thanks:
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Jikan » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:29 pm

dumbbombu wrote:i for one, am struggling in my practice - perhaps we could devote a subforum to tantric wanking with tips and advice from more experienced practitioners?


:reading:
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Virgo » Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:40 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Yes, in Tibet. Tibetans were very prudish about sexuality.

N

People need to just be natural. I'm surprised about this.

Kevin
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Virgo » Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:33 pm

For example, in my area, people are not prude at all. But we are kind of backwoods country people mixed with a little bit of suburbia in some places. I wasn't really raised this way but I've been here since I was twenty or so. People ain't prude here at all. They are very, very natural about who they are. It's a good thing. And people accept each other for who they are. But I think most of America is like this. I'm not really sure though.

Kevin
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby wayland » Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:49 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote:Wayland, I've heard of the possibility of achieving the privilege of a Dakini being ones consort. Perhaps even in the physical dimension, or maybe during Dream Yoga.

Cheers Lhug-Pa, I'd heard of this too. Great if it ever happens.

Of course in the latter situation especially, it's possible, even likely, that we could take our own subjective mental projections to be an actual Dakini; such a case resulting in mental-masturbation rather than high level consort practice (that is if we're not objectively visualizing as in Jnanamudra)

The dream state is an interesting scenario as we are not actively conjuring up like with visualization. Arguably it's still all in the mind but some dreaming is very powerful. It kind of begs the question, where does objective reality and mental projection cross over.

Namaste
wayland
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Tsering927 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:15 pm

“All highest yoga tantras, with different degrees of emphasis, teach that reliance on the method of union with a qualified consort is an indispensable step in the path to realization.”

The Treasury of Knowledge
Book Six, Part Four:
Systems of Buddhist Tantra
Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye
Trans. Elio Guarisco and Ingrid McLeod

What does union mean? Can a realized yogi – ordained or not – call the mind of his or her consort (human or non-human), through mantra and visualization, and enter into union? Does the human consort have to be there in physical form? I think ordained pratitioners do enter into and practice union with human consorts, but I don’t think that the human being is physically present, and the experience of union arises according to his or her realization – maybe they see the Lama as the Deity, or maybe they develop the same attachment that would arise in a purely physical relationship. I think that is what is meant by “qualified consort” – someone who isn’t lost in ordinary attachment. I think mind-consorts are both human and non-human and most of the Mahasiddha activity was mind activity. In Tibetan and Indian cultures, I think they see and experience each others mind. I mean their visualizations are a shared experience.

I don’t know if I wrote that very well, but I think we get stuck on one view of union practice, and it may not always be experienced that way by all cultures.
It is said that you can tell whether someone has just eaten by how red his face is. Similarly, you can tell whether people know and practice the Dharma by whether it works as a remedy for their negative emotions and ego-clinging. --Jetsun Mila

The hungry are not satisfied by hearing about food; what they need is to eat. In the same way, just to know about Dharma is useless; it has to be practiced. --Jetsun Mila
User avatar
Tsering927
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:20 pm

Tsering927 wrote: Does the human consort have to be there in physical form?


If you are practicing karmamudra, yes. If not, then you are practicing jñānamudra with an imaginary consort and your hand. You need to get an erection (or if you are female, aroused) somehow and develop physical pleasure. Otherwise the solo practice does not work and is just intellectual exercise not grounded in the bliss of the body.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Caz » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:49 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Caz wrote:Tantric wanking ? :rolling:
Isnt this why its not ment to be disscussed openly to prevent fits of giggles ? :jumping:



It is a skillful means meant to make Buddhism appealing to teen football hooligans.


:thumbsup:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby wayland » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:56 am

Namdrol wrote:
Tsering927 wrote: Does the human consort have to be there in physical form?


If you are practicing karmamudra, yes. If not, then you are practicing jñānamudra with an imaginary consort and your hand. You need to get an erection (or if you are female, aroused) somehow and develop physical pleasure. Otherwise the solo practice does not work and is just intellectual exercise not grounded in the bliss of the body.

N

Hi Namdrol,
Is it possible to attain the degree of absorption required to draw the prana into the central channel whilst doing this? I'd always assumed the bliss generated by visualization would be of a more internalized, subtle kind.
Namaste
wayland
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:09 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Tsering927 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:03 pm

What we have to define here is “actual.” What “actual” means in mundane conceptuality and what “actual” refers to in Vajrayana meditation may be different. Ordained Lamas enter into union with actual consorts, but he or she isn’t physically present --- however, mundane sexual bliss is experienced by a consort who has ordinary attachment. However, if he or she understands the visualization – the generation and the completion phases of deity practice, the experience of union is drawn into his or her practice.

Even married Lamas usually rely on a “mind-consort” that may or may not be his or her “actual” marriage partner. How many married Rinpoches don’t have children?

For the practice of deity yoga, practitioners rely on the mind. The physical sensations are similar to actual sexual union and the experience varies according to the level of realization of the Lama and his or her consort.

My point is that they are not in union in bed – usually, even married practitioners enter into union through meditation – through the power of calling the mind of the consort through visualization and mantra. In this case, they don’t need to be in the same room, the same house, the same country or even in the same realm – as in the case of non-human consorts. We need to redefine or expand upon the term “actual” consort according to a Vajrayana perspective.
It is said that you can tell whether someone has just eaten by how red his face is. Similarly, you can tell whether people know and practice the Dharma by whether it works as a remedy for their negative emotions and ego-clinging. --Jetsun Mila

The hungry are not satisfied by hearing about food; what they need is to eat. In the same way, just to know about Dharma is useless; it has to be practiced. --Jetsun Mila
User avatar
Tsering927
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:45 pm

Tsering927 wrote:My point is that they are not in union in bed


Of course they are -- this idea is a total fantasy, I am sorry to say.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Lhug-Pa » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:49 pm

Cheers Wayland

Regarding your last question asked in the post you addressed to me, my view thus far is simply that that's something we have to discover for ourselves based on our own study and meditation.

:anjali:
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Lhug-Pa » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:54 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Tsering927 wrote: Does the human consort have to be there in physical form?


If you are practicing karmamudra, yes. If not, then you are practicing jñānamudra with an imaginary consort and your hand. You need to get an erection (or if you are female, aroused) somehow and develop physical pleasure. Otherwise the solo practice does not work and is just intellectual exercise not grounded in the bliss of the body.


Are there any books in English explaining this practice?

It does sound similar to one version of Vajroli Mudra (not the urethra probing version) that combines Pranayama and a massage of sorts.

What you describe here could be very dangerous (even more-so than Karmamudra) without proper guidance, as it could easily degenerate into masturbation.

Anyway, I'd say that Karmamudra (physical union) is (properly understood) a lot more important for Tantrayana than many think.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby deff » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:18 pm

masturbation is very dangerous? :smile:
deff
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Lhug-Pa » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:27 pm

That was already covered on the :arrow: first page of this thread, Deff. :idea:
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:48 pm

deff wrote:masturbation is very dangerous? :smile:


Some people apparently think so -- they might go blind or grow hair on their palms. :roll:
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby Lhug-Pa » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:55 pm

Easy with the straw-men now. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?

Postby wayland » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:53 am

Lhug-Pa wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Tsering927 wrote: Does the human consort have to be there in physical form?


If you are practicing karmamudra, yes. If not, then you are practicing jñānamudra with an imaginary consort and your hand. You need to get an erection (or if you are female, aroused) somehow and develop physical pleasure. Otherwise the solo practice does not work and is just intellectual exercise not grounded in the bliss of the body.


Are there any books in English explaining this practice?


Good question. I wouldn't mind reading up on it myself, as I've never encountered this angle on jñānamudra practice before.

Some great replies on this thread btw. I haven't had time to respond and thank everyone for their contribution but I have read and re-read the replies with gratitude. My thanks to all.
wayland
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

>