Is Guru Yoga Based on Pantheism?

[Malcolm]

Take Dzogchen direct introduction, for example. The guru has to "get into that state," otherwise you can't. How is it possible someone can recognize the guru's state without a pervasive continuity?

Just as two different dharmins, for example, two instances of fire, possess the same dharmatā, for example, heat; likewise two different sentient beings also possess the same state without the need for some ontically established pervasive continuity.

[deepbluehum]

As it says in the Suttas cited in this thread. Nibbana is an eternal and radiant consciousness.

Dude, nibbana is unarisen not eternal.


Kevin

That's not what DN 11 or MN 49 says, dude.

[deepbluehum]

Take Dzogchen direct introduction, for example. The guru has to "get into that state," otherwise you can't. How is it possible someone can recognize the guru's state without a pervasive continuity?

Just as two different dharmins, for example, two instances of fire, possess the same dharmatā, for example, heat; likewise two different sentient beings also possess the same state without the need for some ontically established pervasive continuity.

Heat is something you can feel and transfer from on thing to the next. How does the student feel the state or what is transferred?

How do the sounds of the Song of the Vajra emanate directly from Samantabhadra, if nothing is there?

[Jeff]

No, this simply means that their invidividual continuums were freed of bounderies, not that there is only one mental continuum sharing three bodies. In other words, they have equal access to each other's mind, etc.

And it certainly does not mean that we are all just of one mind.

"eka" not only means "one" but can mean "same" in the sense of identical in feature i.e. this pot is the same as the pot, they are identical pots. See one, see all, etc.

So I think you are reading something in that passage that is not there.

M

Maybe we have a semantics issue... In non-duality, how would "equal access to each other's mind" (body) be different?

Well, they do not have the same type of access to other people's minds and so on.

M

I would argue that everyone has equal access to everyone else's mind (body), but their perspective is obstructed. All paths are about removing those obstructions. All objects of form are "shared". It is more about the ability to focus attention on those shared objects. Most just get stuck/confused being caught up in the base reference point of the local body-mind.

[Lotus_Bitch]

What do these appearances that are disjoint, appear in (or are made of)? When "you" notice an appearance, what is the act of noticing?

Also, I agree they are disjoint (or "just happen" like a movie), but would argue that they do happen (or exist).

You should start by reading the sites of the links (especially the blog where the articles came from) I posted. I think they're good places to start. From one the artcles I posted:

Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,

As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).

.............

What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).

It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.

.............

Thanks, sure. I especially like the "In lhatong—in terms of the Four Naljors—one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises".

This is how the practice these days. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc. out there trying to dis-embed from the seen, the heard... If it seem that someone or something is investigating, seeing, practicing, it soon appears that this sense of a doer, an observer or even this abstract and impersonal sense of being is just thinking, feeling, sensing.
.............


As a matter of far, I am not familiar with noting vipassana. What I do is to hold on the 'sense of being' or 'sense of presence'.

This presence that first felt like "I am presence-awareness" now turns into the direct apprehension of the beingness, presence or actuality of seeing, hearing, sensing, etc. in the absence of a subject, knower, self or non-dual awareness-super-Self.

The sense of being (or feeling of existence) is not anymore the sense of my being as a sentient being or even as pure non-dual awareness, but is simply experienced as the beingness of 'what is' manifesting its presence.

[Jeff]

A more skillful way of looking at that quote (in order to avoid subsuming everything as a universal consciousness, which Buddhism rejects,) is through the simile of Indra's Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra.

Just when you think you capped it off, you opened a whole new can of worms. Indra's Net is a borrowed analogy from the Vedas. I would argue, based on all the passages mentioned in this thread, that the Buddha rejected conceptualizing a universal consciousness as mine, etc. And to ensure that his followers would actually recognize this Unconditioned consciousness in short order, he devised these ways of looking that avoid all conceptualizing, such that, the suchness can be seen directly, free from distortion.

It seem subsequent followers got into trouble conceptualizing the method/wisdom scheme the Buddha came up with. With the Abidhamma and Mahayana, you wind up with endless philosophical diatribe. It's in the way, perhaps. Maybe it's better, as the Lanka-avatara Sutra says, to believe in a Self, if you are conceptualizing non-self. For Buddha every word is a remedy to an ailment; the ailment which is preventing your direct perception of the Unconditioned eternal radiant consciousness that we all share.

Either way, experientially understanding anatta, is the only way to break the bonds of subsuming things into an "Awareness." Without that understanding you'll always view things in an Awareness VS Consciousness dualism.

How is there dualism? Consciousness is just a subset of raw Awareness.

[Malcolm]

I would argue that everyone has equal access to everyone else's mind (body), but their perspective is obstructed.

Obstructions =lack of access.

[Malcolm]

Take Dzogchen direct introduction, for example. The guru has to "get into that state," otherwise you can't. How is it possible someone can recognize the guru's state without a pervasive continuity?

Just as two different dharmins, for example, two instances of fire, possess the same dharmatā, for example, heat; likewise two different sentient beings also possess the same state without the need for some ontically established pervasive continuity.

Heat is something you can feel and transfer from on thing to the next.

Just as two different dharmins, for example, two instances of water, possess the same dharmatā, for example, pellucidity; likewise two different sentient beings also possess the same state without the need for some ontically established pervasive continuity.

[Malcolm]

Take Dzogchen direct introduction, for example. The guru has to "get into that state," otherwise you can't. How is it possible someone can recognize the guru's state without a pervasive continuity?

Just as two different dharmins, for example, two instances of fire, possess the same dharmatā, for example, heat; likewise two different sentient beings also possess the same state without the need for some ontically established pervasive continuity.

Heat is something you can feel and transfer from on thing to the next. How does the student feel the state or what is transferred?

How do the sounds of the Song of the Vajra emanate directly from Samantabhadra, if nothing is there?

We are not really discussing Dzogchen -- we are discussing your speculations about Śravakayāna.

[deepbluehum]

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).

You're right except when Buddha said in DN 11, MN 49 and Iti 43, that Nibbana is an eternal consciousness. You're gonna have to live that. Maybe you are a bit wrapped up on your personal trip about evolving passed a Jnani.

[deepbluehum]

Malcolm, The previous two posts skirt the issue. In boxing terminology, it's a rope-a-dope. What quality do both possess the one can see it in the other and thereby see it in themselves. Dzogchen is almost unabashedly Vedantic in its functional procedures, which is why you were very defensive of Vedism previously, it take it. I could be wrong.

[Jeff]

What do these appearances that are disjoint, appear in (or are made of)? When "you" notice an appearance, what is the act of noticing?

Also, I agree they are disjoint (or "just happen" like a movie), but would argue that they do happen (or exist).

You should start by reading the sites of the links (especially the blog where the articles came from) I posted. I think they're good places to start. From one the artcles I posted:

Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,

As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).

.............

What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).

It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.

.............

Thanks, sure. I especially like the "In lhatong—in terms of the Four Naljors—one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises".

This is how the practice these days. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc. out there trying to dis-embed from the seen, the heard... If it seem that someone or something is investigating, seeing, practicing, it soon appears that this sense of a doer, an observer or even this abstract and impersonal sense of being is just thinking, feeling, sensing.

...little deleted...

I don't think you are quite understanding what I am saying... "There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc." is correct. There is no person/ego who "does" it, but seeing, hearing, etc... is noticed (or focused on). It is just not attached to anything.

Also, it depends on the "level/layer" one is focusing on "from". A Buddha has integrated and can view from all levels/perspectives.

[Malcolm]

You're right except when Buddha said in DN 11, MN 49 and Iti 43, that Nibbana is an eternal consciousness.

No,these passages do not state that nirvana is an eternal consciousness. If they did, Buddha would just be a Vedantin following the Upanishads.

[deepbluehum]

You're right except when Buddha said in DN 11, MN 49 and Iti 43, that Nibbana is an eternal consciousness.

No,these passages do not state that nirvana is an eternal consciousness. If they did, Buddha would just be a Vedantin following the Upanishads.

Two words:

Dhuvam,
Anantam,

These mean eternal.

One word:

Vinnana,

Means consciousness

So perhaps he is an Upanishadic Vedantin. As much as the exclusivism of Buddhism has allured me, it's not supported. It's something I've had to take time to accept. But, read 'em and weep.

[Malcolm]

Malcolm, The previous two posts skirt the issue. What quality do both possess the one can see it in the other and thereby see it in themselves.

Kadag, lhun grub and thugs rje, the three inseperable wisdoms of the basis.

Dzogchen is almost unabashedly Vedantic in its functional procedures, which is why you were very defensive of Vedism previously, it take it. I could be wrong.

I wasn't defending Vedism because it has something to with Dzogchen. I was pointing out that Vedic culture has had much valuable knowledge to contribute to the world, regardless of how brahmins may have behaved. Your focus is on the power and privilege issue; my focus is on such thing as Ayurveda, Yoga, etc. We are really not talking about the same thing when we talk about "Vedism".

M

[deepbluehum]

The Upanishads were not in full bloom then. Even in Upanishadic tradition, the atman is not seen as unchanging. Harvey and Werner recognized this when commenting that Buddha was not rejecting Upanishadic notions. There is a definite symbiosis going on here.

[deepbluehum]

Malcolm, The previous two posts skirt the issue. What quality do both possess the one can see it in the other and thereby see it in themselves.

Kadag, lhun grub and thugs rje, the three inseperable wisdoms of the basis.

That we all share.

Dzogchen is almost unabashedly Vedantic in its functional procedures, which is why you were very defensive of Vedism previously, it take it. I could be wrong.

I wasn't defending Vedism because it has something to with Dzogchen. I was pointing out that Vedic culture has had much valuable knowledge to contribute to the world, regardless of how brahmins may have behaved. Your focus is on the power and privilege issue; my focus is on such thing as Ayurveda, Yoga, etc. We are really not talking about the same thing when we talk about "Vedism".

M

Sure. I can see that.

[Jyoti]

This is yet again another Hindu/ Advaitin view, which is wrong view in all yanas of Buddhism.

These view is of definitive meaning that has only one yana, that is the mahayana, regardless of tradition. You can make judgement based on the view of these provisional yanas from the various traditions of buddhism, but these are not definitive, so it cannot be used for the comparison. The only way you can defense your argument against this is to cite sources from the definitive scriptures such as the mahaparinirvana sutra, Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra, Srimala-devi simhanada-sutra, Mahaprajnaparamitasastra, and so on.

The quote from longchenpa didn't reject the dharmakaya, nor the means/functions, so you are not making any point.

[Malcolm]

You're right except when Buddha said in DN 11, MN 49 and Iti 43, that Nibbana is an eternal consciousness.

No,these passages do not state that nirvana is an eternal consciousness. If they did, Buddha would just be a Vedantin following the Upanishads.

Two words:

Dhuvam,
Anantam,

These mean eternal.

One word:

Vinnana,

Means consciousness

So perhaps he is an Upanishadic Vedantin. As much as the exclusivism of Buddhism has allured me, it's not supported. It's something I've had to take time to accept. But, read 'em and weep.

Anantam just means limitless (an+anta); it does not mean eternal.

Dhuvam can mean permanent, but more often is understood as continuous:

Dhuva
Dhuva (adj.) [Sk. dhruva, cp. Lith. drúta firm; Goth. triggws=Ohg. triuwi (Ger. treue, trost); Ags. tréowe= E. true, of Idg. *dheru, enlarged form of *dher, see dharati] stable, constant, permanent; fixed, regular, certain, sure D i.18; S i.142; iv.370; A ii.33; J i.19; v.121 (˚sassataŋ maraṇaŋ); iii.325; Bu ii.82; Miln 114 (na tā nadiyo dh -- salilā). 334 (˚phala); Vism 77; DA i.112 (maraṇaŋ apassanto dh.), 150 (=thāvara); DhA iii.170 (adhuvaŋ jīvitaŋ dhuvaŋ maraṇaŋ); ThA 241; Sdhp 331. -- nt. permanence, stability M i.326; Dh 147. Also Ep. of Nibbāna (see ˚gāmin). -- nt. as adv. dhuvaŋ continuously, constantly, always J ii.24=Miln 172; PvA 207; certainly J i.18, v.103. -- adhuva (addhuva) changing, unstable, impermanent D i.19 (anicca a. appāyuka); M i.326; S iv.302; J i.393; iii.19 (addhuva -- sīla); VvA 77.
-- gāmin leading to permanence, i. e. Nibbāna S iv.370

M

[SSJ3Gogeta]

This is yet again another Hindu/ Advaitin view, which is wrong view in all yanas of Buddhism.

These view is of definitive meaning that has only one yana, that is the mahayana, regardless of tradition. You can make judgement based on the view of these provisional yanas from the various traditions of buddhism, but these are not definitive, so it cannot be used for the comparison. The only way you can defense your argument against this is to cite sources from the definitive scriptures such as the mahaparinirvana sutra, Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra, Srimala-devi simhanada-sutra, Mahaprajnaparamitasastra, and so on.

The quote from longchenpa didn't reject the dharmakaya, nor the means/functions, so you are not making any point.

Those are definitive scriptures?

sweet jesus christ.

The Mahayana material that is definitive is PP Sutras and Madhyamaka.