Is Guru Yoga Based on Pantheism?

[Lotus_Bitch]

Hi Lotus_bitch,

Thanks again for the text. Given it's length, I will just reply rather than include your full text.

Experiencally, "emptiness" is different (and simpler) than your above text. A possible way to think about it is that everything that "exists" is made of energy. The chair that you sit on is just energy particles in vibration. The "mind" defines it as a chair. Clear the obstructions of the "mind" and you can "notice" it. Percieve "deeper" and one realizes that "energy" is not really separate, but the localized motion (or change of state) of the base stuff (for simplicity I call it raw awareness - so that people don't confuse it with the perception awareness). So, if you can percieve deep enough, there is really nothing there.

Consciousness arises (bubbles up) from raw awareness (or is awareness in motion). The "base" level is nothing (or void), but in it is the potential for consciousness.

I'm going to be blunt, but only because I think one should be honest to themselves about their level of insight. That way instead of getting stuck because of pride, an individual will be able to asses where they actually are, to keep themselves honest and to make further progress.

You do not have insight into anatta or dependent origination/emptiness. What you are describing is akin to Hinduism (specifically Advaita Vedanta.)

I thought we were just having a good discussion on perspectives, but I have obviously irritated you somehow. I am sorry to have caused you any concern.

Enjoy your weekend.

I'm not irritated at all. I'm completely free of any concerns. Though how about you?

Enjoy your weekend also

[Lotus_Bitch]

Thanks. I am new to Buddhist definition of terms. My background would be best described as a hybrid of various paths (or experimentally making it up as I go). Not a big adavaita fan.

With your definition on non-duality... It may be more accurate to say that my concept of non-duality = Buddhist non-duality + no-self. Dependent origination can be tossed in for free.

I will try to be more careful with my terms in the future.

Most paths other than Buddhism either fall into eternalism or nihilism. Also I said it sounds like Advaita Vedanta. From my own experience and reading peoples experiences/interacting with people in this spiritual game: Everyone will reify non-conceptual presence and will fall into the "I AM" conceit of Hinduism (which means that when they progress to insight of "non-dual" it is the experience of Brahman aka non-dual "Awareness" as background consciousness.)

Of course the exceptions are those who start out with the insight into anatta, anicca, dukkha that makes up stream-entry/sotapanna; who then experience the "I AM" later on. Though those exceptions are rare. Pretty much everyone will go through the "I AM" phase first. The "I AM" phase is the luminosity of "awareness" experienced in a non-conceptual state; this is then reified into the Atman/Self. Brahman is basically when object is subsumed into subject, whereby "Awareness" is the formless background, from which there is the sense that the objects of our experience arise from and dissolve into.

I think word "awareness" is where we keep getting stuck in our discussion. In all of my descriptions, "nothingness" could be used instead of awareness. Your (or Thusness's) description of "I am" is just the beginning of noticing there is a curtain to look behind.

Also, I am not trying to debate what words best describe terms for different paths. My knowledge of buddhist texts and terms are very limited. Just trying to give examples of the actual experience.

To really confuse/offend everyone, I would argue that Buddha used "guru yoga" or energetic "oneness" to teach. Why do you think in all the stories, he always told everyone to just sit quietly in his presence for a year before asking questions? My bet is that he formed a "guru" bond with them to help with the removal of their obstructions. With a master, words are meaningless in comparison to energy/silence being shared in their presence.

"Nothingness" also denotes an extreme. Nisargadatta describes this state. You might want to check that out. Also on Thusness stages, that would be stage 3.

Also, it's not about what words you use: It's how you describe these experiences that count. The way you are describing it sounds very much like Advaita Vedanta.

[Jeff]

I'm not irritated at all. I'm completely free of any concerns. Though how about you?

Enjoy your weekend also

Same here.

[Jeff]

"Nothingness" also denotes an extreme. Nisargadatta describes this state. You might want to check that out. Also on Thusness stages, that would be stage 3.

Also, it's not about what words you use: It's how you describe these experiences that count. The way you are describing it sounds very much like Advaita Vedanta.

Nothingness is just a word like empty. As Andrew said in his goodbye, experience is what matters. Classifying or ranking is not particularly interesting for me. I am happy with where I am (or not). I just try to feel the flow and go with it. This thread has been very helpful to my better understanding Buddhist terms.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Also on Thusness stages, that would be stage 3.

stage 3? lol

Thusness is a fake Dzogchen teacher who spews nonsense.

Stage 7 would be the equivalent of the realization of someone on the 8th bhumi.

sweet. jesus . H. christ.

[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.

Those are definitive scriptures?

sweet jesus christ.

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

The sutras above were of Madhyamaka.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

The sutras above were of Madhyamaka.

no they are not

[Jyoti]

The sutras above were of Madhyamaka.

no they are not

From 《中国佛教传统宗系提要》

3）中观宗所依的主要根本经典
　　中观宗所依的主要根本经典包括：《法华经》、《涅槃经》、《般若经》、《维摩经》、《中论》、《大智度论》、《十二门论》、《回诤论》、《七十空性论》、《十住毗婆沙论》、《菩提资粮论》、《百论》等。

indicate the maha parinirvana sutra is included as one the main sutras relied by the Madhyamaka tradition. While others were not specially indicated here, they are also of definitive meaning. I wonder if you have a method to determine what is definitive, apart from the fact the the PP also one of the main sutra used by the Madhyamaka. If you do you will not simply dismissed them as nondefinitive on the basis that it is not the PP you are familiar with.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

I only read english.

Most of the sutras you cite belong to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81 ... bha_Sutras

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Are you confusing the word "Madhyamaka" with the word "Mahayana"?

That would explain a lot.

[xabir]

Thank you for the above links. I also got a chance to check out the Thusness seven stages. I found everything to be consistent with what I was trying to describe previously. As you pointed out, my definition of "non-dual" was far richer than the Buddhist definition.

Also, after stage 7 of Thusness, one begins to expand beyond of the local "body-mind" and can experience all existence (form). In Thusness terms, what I was describing would be a level 9 or 10.

Non-local experience does not go beyond the 7 stages, i.e. see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2 ... ality.html

However having non-local experiences does not necessarily indicate any insight. You can be Stage 0 and have non-local experiences through deep concentration. In Buddhist terms, the cultivation of siddhis through dhyana.

[xabir]

Everyone will reify non-conceptual presence and will fall into the "I AM" conceit of Hinduism

Not everyone but most so called "realized persons" that I saw, yes. Have you opened the zip file I sent you?

Stage 7 would be the equivalent of the realization of someone on the 8th bhumi.

There are so many schemes of enlightenment, even within the bhumi scheme there can be many interpretations. Even within Mahamudra there are many interpretations. Nothing good comes out of making such assertions, and 'Thusness' asked me not to talk openly about his realizations in terms of bhumi (not that he rejects such maps). It is not good to tell people 'I am such and such bhumi' (it often carries lots of baggage) but it is ok to discuss one's experience/realization as it is.

stage 3? lol

Thusness is a fake Dzogchen teacher who spews nonsense.

Wrong. Thusness is not a teacher, and not a Dzogchen practitioner. He is Buddhist.

Frankly, I am not so comfortable seeing lotus_bitch quoting my blog all over, lol

[Jyoti]

Are you confusing the word "Madhyamaka" with the word "Mahayana"?

That would explain a lot.

No confusion here with the words.

[deepbluehum]

He is citing a parallel with Buddha's discourses, not a distinction.

A parallel, yes, but with a distinction. You are overlooking the distinctions.

Sure, there's a small distinction being made in context. The Buddha never asserts an unchanging individual atman; that's obvious. That's not what's important. What's important is that he never specifically refutes Upanishadic notions. That's number one. Number two, he does assert nibbana as an being eternal consciousness. There's no getting around that. Number three, even if you assert an unchanging atman, if you assert a changing atman superimposed on the unchanging one, and the unchanging one merges into Brahman when the changing one ceases, then you have, in sum and in function, an identical theory with Buddhist liberation. You would have what would amount to a distinction without a difference. This is what I've been pointing at in these recent threads, that all the profusions of Buddhist diatribe amounts to endless distinctions without a functional difference. And that is why you have the functionality of Guru Yoga which functions almost identically to the same procedure in Hindu tantric systems.

[Malcolm]

He is citing a parallel with Buddha's discourses, not a distinction.

A parallel, yes, but with a distinction. You are overlooking the distinctions.

Sure, there's a small distinction being made in context. The Buddha never asserts an unchanging individual atman; that's obvious. That's not what's important. What's important is that he never specifically refutes Upanishadic notions. That's number one. Number two, he does assert nibbana as an being eternal consciousness.

No, Buddha never says that. This is why there is so much discussion about it among various schools. He never comes right out and says, anywhere at all that "Nirvana is an eternal consciousness". This is the reason why, for example, the Sautrantikas can say that nirvana is a non-existence, etc. Why? Because they reject the speculations of the Abhidharmikas, and based themselves strictly on what the sutras say. Since the Śravaka sutras do not say explicitly this, we then have divergent schools of thought arising about what the Buddha meant.

There's no getting around that. Number three, even if you assert an unchanging atman, if you assert a changing atman superimposed on the unchanging one, and the unchanging one merges into Brahman when the changing one ceases, then you have, in sum and in function, an identical theory with Buddhist liberation.

Only if you beleive in your first assertion.

You would have what would amount to a distinction without a difference. This is what I've been pointing at in these recent threads, that all the profusions of Buddhist diatribe amounts to endless distinctions without a functional difference. And that is why you have the functionality of Guru Yoga which functions almost identically to the same procedure in Hindu tantric systems.

Only if your intitial premise is true. However, your initial premise is an gross overstatement not grounded in fact; rather it is grounded in a sketchy interpretation of one statement in the Tripitika. It is similar to the Pudgalavadins who try to prove, based on one or two statements, that Buddha taught the existence of an inexpressible person [pudgala] who is neither the same as nor different than the aggregates who nevertheless transmigrates.

Like their position, there is not sufficient evidence to support your present claim. It is definitely not sufficient for making argument about principles of Guru Yoga. Guru Yoga is simply a method of recognizing and abiding in the nature of the reality that your Guru introduces and nothing more.

On another note, it certainly would be nice if everyone was in a state of ekacitta -- then all these pointless conversations would cease.

M

[Lotus_Bitch]

Frankly, I am not so comfortable seeing lotus_bitch quoting my blog all over, lol

Yeah, sorry about that. It was the sutras and the links posted on your blog that I wanted to quote. Next time, I will ask for permission to quote material from your blog.

[deepbluehum]

There are two suttas that describe nibbana as consciousness (vinnana) eternal (anantam) and everywhere (sabbato) aka omnipresent. And another that also calls it eternal (dhuvam). So it's hardly sketchy to refer to Nibbana as eternal. You yourself previously pointed out the dharmakaya is eternal as in the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra. This has nothing to do with the Pudgala theory. There is simply a distinction being made between the conditioned vs. the unconditioned consciousnesses. Underlying everything is consciousness, meaning, it is the final analytic. And it is already beyond existence and non-, per the analysis of the 12-links. So I think Garchen Rinpoche and Jeff are right; it is due to the nature of consciousness being all-pervasive that Guru Yoga can have its effect.

[Malcolm]

There are two suttas that describe nibbana as consciousness (vinnana) eternal (anantam) and everywhere (sabbato) aka omnipresent. And another that also calls it eternal (dhuvam). So it's hardly sketchy to refer to Nibbana as eternal. You yourself previously pointed out the dharmakaya is eternal as in the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra. This has nothing to do with the Pudgala theory. There is simply a distinction being made between the conditioned vs. the unconditioned consciousnesses. Underlying everything is consciousness, meaning, it is the final analytic. And it is already beyond existence and non-, per the analysis of the 12-links. So I think Garchen Rinpoche and Jeff are right; it is due to the nature of consciousness being all-pervasive that Guru Yoga can have its effect.

Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

For the supported there is instability, for the unsupported there is no instability; when there is no instability there is serenity; when there is serenity there is no inclination: when there is no inclination there is no coming-and-going; when there is no coming-and-going there is no decease-and-uprising; when there is no decease-and-uprising there is neither "here" nor "beyond" nor "in between the two." Just this is the end of suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

[Virgo]

There are two suttas that describe nibbana as consciousness (vinnana) eternal (anantam) and everywhere (sabbato) aka omnipresent. And another that also calls it eternal (dhuvam). So it's hardly sketchy to refer to Nibbana as eternal.

The cessation of ignorance, or of the all the defilements, or of dukkha and so on, can all be described as "everlasting", or even as "eternal" (though that's not the best word for it). Nirbbana, however, does not arise, doesn't come into being at all, so it is beyond eternal or not eternal.

Underlying everything is consciousness, meaning, it is the final analytic. And it is already beyond existence and non-, per the analysis of the 12-links. So I think Garchen Rinpoche and Jeff are right; it is due to the nature of consciousness being all-pervasive that Guru Yoga can have its effect.

In Theravada, for example, nibbana is not concsiousness (though it is classified as nama, not rupa, it is the one type of nama that does not know anything itself). It is a paramattha dhamma known by consciousness. The act of consciousness perceiving and knowing it removes defilements, in stages. After the parinibanna or an Arhat, consciousness never arises again because there is no cause for it to arise, being that there is no cause for any of the sense bases to arise, which would include the mental base wherefrom consciousness would arise at. Of course in Mahayana it is different, but thinking everything shares a single consciousness lacks understanding. We do have individual mindstreams.

Kevin

[Jyoti]

The cessation of ignorance, or of the all the defilements, or of dukkha and so on, can all be described as "everlasting", or even as "eternal" (though that's not the best word for it). Nirbbana, however, does not arise, doesn't come into being at all, so it is beyond eternal or not eternal.

These words as method of negation are unnecessary if one is discussing the meaning definitively, that is, if the meaning of nirvana is definitive. Nirvana is the foundation of buddhism, all teachings are means based on it, thus it is the body of dharma which is permanent.

Of course in Mahayana it is different, but thinking everything shares a single consciousness lacks understanding. We do have individual mindstreams.

Just as within a dream, appearances of people seems to have their own individual mind streams, but they are not real, only deceptively exist as appearance only. What make a dream environment possible is not due to multiple consciousnesses, but the consciousness of your own which is not share by anyone else. Similary in reality, all phenomena is manifestation of a single consciousness.