Is Guru Yoga Based on Pantheism?

[Malcolm]

Is everything permeated by this?

The three kāyas are the basis. Everything that appears to arise, arises from ignorance [ma rig pa] of this basis. When one is in possession of knowledge [rig pa] of the basis's actual state, and has integrated completely with that knowledge, then it is said that the universe arises as the basis.

It is not complex, nor does it entail pantheism, panpsychism or anything else. It is what it is.

M

What it is is a Samkya Vedanta question. When It is what you say it is, it is compounded. When you are referring to faculties for the pragmatic approach to soteriology, what it is is irrelevant. You go straight to the finish where is, it or not are unnecessary to fashion.

The basis is asaṃkrita.

The Dzogchen tantras are aware of Saṃkhya as well as Vedanta, and take specific pains to differentiate Dzogchen view from these systems.

M

[Jeff]

I recently asked Garchen Rinpoche how Guru Yoga works. Garchen Rinpoche told me the nature of mind is omnipresent and permeates all beings which is why one can unite with the mind of the guru. I asked him if this was the same as the Hindu notion of Brahman? He said the Buddha only meant to refute a Creator God, but the notion of Brahman is basically fine with buddha-dharma. That was surprising to me.

Malcolm has also pointed out that in the Khandro Nyingthig texts Guru P has stated that everything is rigpa.

So does Guru Yoga betray the Pantheism underlying Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen?

Garchen Rinpoche is very wise.

At the level of duality, the easiest way to think of it is that we are all beings in consciousness. A true guru is able to connect at the heart (or overlap presence in consciousness). Through the connection information/energy/light is shared which can "acceralate" spiritual growth (almost like drafting). At it's essence, the practice is the same as Tibetan Deity Yoga. But, in Deity yoga, one must have control of "tummo" to connect with the Deity/Master in consciousness. A true guru has realized non-dual and can thus at a dualistic level "connect" to anyone.

The universal Buddha consciousness?

Depends on how you define "universal Buddha consciousness". Non-dual perception itself is really just the beginning (or it expands). An example in this context would be... At first one can connect with everyone, then "merge" with everyone and ultimately "be" everyone. But, all of this is in the context of always "knowing" it is all part of the field of awareness/consciousness.

[Malcolm]

The universal Buddha consciousness?

There is no such thing.

[Andrew108]

There is no level of duality in Guru Yoga. This is the point. That's why we have the yoga part. Without the yoga or unity or inseparability you just have the guru and ideas.

For the "guru" you are correct, but for the person being "connected to" they percieve it as an astral presence/feeling.

Additionally, a guru/master can percieve/operate in a duality framework. The world does not disappear.

Is it really like that? That's interesting. Thanks.

[Jeff]

There is no level of duality in Guru Yoga. This is the point. That's why we have the yoga part. Without the yoga or unity or inseparability you just have the guru and ideas.

For the "guru" you are correct, but for the person being "connected to" they percieve it as an astral presence/feeling.

Additionally, a guru/master can percieve/operate in a duality framework. The world does not disappear.

Is it really like that? That's interesting. Thanks.

Yes.

In my opinion, the easiest way to think about it is that consciousness has "layers". The deeper (or higher) you go, the greater the "oneness" or "nothingness of the person/ego". When someone realizes (or reaches) true non-duality, there is a tendency to stay focused on that "layer" (and just hang out on a mountain top). But while all "layers" are non-permenient, they are all equally valid. When texts talk about the "compassion of a Buddha" (or guru master) that means that they can focus on any "layer" and help beings deal with the crap of seeing thru their percieved trap/suffering. It does not mean that they are necessarily nice/compassionate in a dualistic "human framework".



P.s. there are not really "layers", just using the concept to help explain.

[deepbluehum]

The basis is asaṃkrita.

What is this word translated?

The Dzogchen tantras are aware of Saṃkhya as well as Vedanta, and take specific pains to differentiate Dzogchen view from these systems.

It is easy to differentiate such things with arguments. But do they taste different?

[deepbluehum]

The universal Buddha consciousness?

There is no such thing.

I think Jeff disagrees with you. So does Garchen Rinpoche, such phrases like, "all pervading," even in Dzogchen texts, betray omnipresence, i.e., pan-psychism, etc.

[deepbluehum]

Here's what Buddha says about nibbana in the Pali text:

Kevatta Sutta's phrase:

Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ

Viññāṇaṃ: consciousness, perception,
anidassanaṃ: [no] features, signs, characteristics
anantam: infinite, endless, eternal, boundless, unending
sabbato: all around, everywhere, in all respects
pabham: light, radiance, shine

My rendering:
"Everywhere, the infinitely radiant and featureless perception."

Brahmanimantanika Sutta's phrase:

Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ

Which is exactly the same phrase.

The use of the word "anantam" here makes is pretty clear the Buddha means not just stable, but infinite in this perception's radiance and featurelessness.

So, is it sufficiently "everywhere" and "infinite" so that your guru you can think on your guru and get it?

[Andrew108]

Not sure where Jeff is coming from, but makes for interesting reading.

[Andrew108]

Actually Jeff what do you think colors are?

[Malcolm]

The universal Buddha consciousness?

There is no such thing.

I think Jeff disagrees with you. So does Garchen Rinpoche, such phrases like, "all pervading," even in Dzogchen texts, betray omnipresence, i.e., pan-psychism, etc.

Thanissaro notes:

Viññanam anidassanam. This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.) Again, as "all" is defined as the sense media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "objectify non-objectification," which gets in the way of attaining the non-objectified. Thus this is a question that is best put aside.

[futerko]

phrases like, "all pervading," even in Dzogchen texts, betray omnipresence, i.e., pan-psychism, etc.

I suspect that reading might apply at an outer level. Does it also apply at the inner and most subtle levels too?

[Jeff]

Actually Jeff what do you think colors are?

The mind interpreting percieved energy flows.

Andrew - experienced tummo, or feel energy flows?

[Malcolm]

For context:


Where do earth, water, fire and air no footing find?
Where are long and short, small and great, fair and four –
Where are “name and form” wholly destroyed?
And the answer is:
‘Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous,
That’s where earth, water, fire and air find no footing,
There both long and short, small and great, fair and foul –
There “name and form” are wholly destroyed.
With the cessation of consciousness this is all destroyed.’”

Thannisaro renders it slightly differently:

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:


Consciousness without feature,[1]
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"

[deepbluehum]

I have spent significant time investigating this issue. Thassinaro and others have purported this view, but it it is not supported. That is saying that when the Buddha says nibbana is a consciousness that is everywhere, radiant, infinite, etc., it is not a consciousness and is not everywhere, etc.

What Buddha is saying is that it is not a consciousness that is conditioned. But also that objectifying it on the path would lead to conditioned consciousness. The Buddha emphasizes pragmatism for this reason. But he does not as a rule avoid objectifying all the time, hence the above cited text.

Again, unlike you, I don't just acquiece when a monk tells me what to think. I look for myself. Isn't it this very omnipresence that accounts for the efficacy of Guru Yoga as Garchen Rinpoche mentioned?

[Andrew108]

Actually Jeff what do you think colors are?

The mind interpreting percieved energy flows.

Andrew - experienced tummo, or feel energy flows?

No I haven't experienced tummo. I don't feel energy flows either. I mean how do I know it's energy? I guess I would have to label it? Also how do I know that there is consciousness?

[deepbluehum]

No I haven't experienced tummo. I don't feel energy flows either. I mean how do I know it's energy? I guess I would have to label it? Also how do I know that there is consciousness?

You have to get grounded in everyday common sense talk. You are aware. That's how you perceive and function. Energy is any feeling. If your adrenaline pumps you feel a lot of energy. Like that.

[Andrew108]

So let's get grounded. What do you think colors are?

[deepbluehum]

So let's get grounded. What do you think colors are?

Forms of light

[Malcolm]

Again, unlike you, I don't just acquiece when a monk tells me what to think.

I don't acquiesce to what anyone tells me to think.

I provided those sources for information.

And unlike you, I refrain from baseless ad homninem remarks.