Is Guru Yoga Based on Pantheism?

[Malcolm]

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.

This is Vedanta.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

'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.

Its funny that 'Thusness' thinks he is on any bhumi at all.

Atleast Adyashanti has a Zen lineage. 'Thusness' is just a crazy person, and not insightful in any way.

[Malcolm]

'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.

Its funny that 'Thusness' thinks he is on any bhumi at all.

Atleast Adyashanti has a Zen lineage. 'Thusness' is just a fraud.

I don't think we really need to be discussing this.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

I don't think we really need to be discussing this.

ok

[Jeff]

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.

Thank you for the link. It was helpful describing non-duality from a "Thusness" perspective. It fits well in line with my definition. Lotus_bitch had just defined Buddhist non-duality in different terms.

Also, there is a major difference between a non-dual non-local and a non-local experience. No one who experiences non-dual non-local would ever confuse it with something like astral travel. There is no place to go...

[futerko]

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.

What you've written here appears to be contradictory.

In Buddhist terms, independent and eternal is the definition of true existence. If it is "already beyond existence and non-" as you say, then it must also be empty of inherent existence.

[Jyoti]

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.

This is Vedanta.

This is not a problem on the position of definitive meaning.

[Malcolm]

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.

This is Vedanta.

This is not a problem on the position of definitive meaning.

Yes, it most certainly is. Moreover, since you are a fan of Yogacara, you should be aware that while Vasubandhu, for example, rejects outer objects, he defends the existence of sentient beings possessing distinct and unique mental continuums.

In other words, yogacara does not propose that the appearance of other minds is illusory -- in fact, when you read the Mahāyāna Samgraha, for example, by Asanga, he shows quite clearly that it is because of shared traces that we all perceive the same container world. In other words, for Yogacara, individual minds are real, but not their appearances.

I think you need to correct your understanding of Yogacara.

BTW, this is off topic for this thread, you should continue this in either the academic forum or somewhere else, but not in this thread.

M

[Jyoti]

malcolm pls refer to the new topic in the academic forum.

[Yudron]

Dzogchen guru yoga is tibetan letter A surrounded by a circle.

As you know the letter A is a coded symbol for breaking through

In Dzogchen everything is rigpa

1. Rigpa is not a thing.

2. Rigpa means knowledge.

3. If anything the universe appears because of ignorance (marigpa) as explained by Malcolm above.

I'm not a scholar or translator, but I do feel that rigpa (vidya Skt) does not mean knowledge. Rigpa is that which sees the non-dual nature. Knowledge makes it sound like rigpa is remembering facts -- that would send people down a path focusing on conceptual mind and intellectualism, which is really a dead end.

[Malcolm]

I'm not a scholar or translator, but I do feel that rigpa (vidya Skt) does not mean knowledge.

Rigpa, in all Dzogchen texts, is constrasted with Ma rigpa. Because of not knowing [ma rig pa] our real state we enter samsara. Through knowing [rig pa] our real state, we attain liberation.

M

[Lotus_Bitch]

Lotus_bitch had just defined Buddhist non-duality in different terms.

Also, there is a major difference between a non-dual non-local and a non-local experience. No one who experiences non-dual non-local would ever confuse it with something like astral travel. There is no place to go...

I quoted the Surangama Sutra and articles, to show how subtle grasping of certain experiences, leads to the reification of consciousness.

The Buddha clearly refutes the position you are proposing in the Buddhist canon. According to Buddhism: The sort of experience you're describing will lead to rebirth in a long lived God realm; only to either re-enter lower planes of existence (once the merit of being born there is exhausted) or to be reexpressed in ignorance at the start of a new universe.

It's likely, that you had an experience (which by the way doesn't mean having realization) of the "I AM" phase. Even in this phase: One experiences the non-localization of consciousness, whereby one overcomes the tendency to view reality in a brain/body complex (though there is still a sense of a subject/object duality, which hasn't been overcome in this phase.)

[deepbluehum]

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

Harvey points out nibbana is unsupported discernment. What these quotes represent is the way to discern unsupported vs supported.

[Jeff]

Lotus_bitch had just defined Buddhist non-duality in different terms.

Also, there is a major difference between a non-dual non-local and a non-local experience. No one who experiences non-dual non-local would ever confuse it with something like astral travel. There is no place to go...

I quoted the Surangama Sutra and articles, to show how subtle grasping of certain experiences, leads to the reification of consciousness.

The Buddha clearly refutes the position you are proposing in the Buddhist canon. According to Buddhism: The sort of experience you're describing will lead to rebirth in a long lived God realm; only to either re-enter lower planes of existence (once the merit of being born there is exhausted) or to be reexpressed in ignorance at the start of a new universe.

It's likely, that you had an experience (which by the way doesn't mean having realization) of the "I AM" phase. Even in this phase: One experiences the non-localization of consciousness, whereby one overcomes the tendency to view reality in a brain/body complex (though there is still a sense of a subject/object duality, which hasn't been overcome in this phase.)

I thought I stated above that my position was the same as the Surangama Sutra quoted.

While I grasp the "nature and intent" of your above comments, I see no value in pursuing them or worrying about a ranking on the "Thusness scale". Rather than concern with any "rebirth", I enjoy the story as the mystery continues to unfold.

[Lotus_Bitch]

I thought I stated above that my position was the same as the Surangama Sutra quoted.

While I grasp the "nature and intent" of your above comments, I see no value in pursuing them or worrying about a ranking on the "Thusness scale". Rather than concern with any "rebirth", I enjoy the story as the mystery continues to unfold.

I thought I stated above that my position was the same as the Surangama Sutra quoted.

Your position is not in line with the Surangama Sutra or with Buddhism in general.

While I grasp the "nature and intent" of your above comments,

You have clearly missed the point of my posts.

I see no value in pursuing them or worrying about a ranking on the "Thusness scale".

This really isn't about Thusness's ranking system (you were the one who brought it up,) this is about you expounding a view shared by Hinduism (which the Buddha refuted.)

Rather than concern with any "rebirth", I enjoy the story as the mystery continues to unfold.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to understand Buddhism on an intellectual and experiential level.

My advice is to at least keep an open mind, to keep questioning your current understanding of reality, and to not let pride, arrogance, or doubt (in your ability to move forward) get in the way of making continual progress on the path.

Have a great day/evening!

[Jeff]

My advice is to at least keep an open mind, to keep questioning your current understanding of reality, and to not let pride, arrogance, or doubt (in your ability to move forward) get in the way of making continual progress on the path.

Have a great day/evening!

Very good advice for all of us.

[Yudron]

I'm not a scholar or translator, but I do feel that rigpa (vidya Skt) does not mean knowledge.

Rigpa, in all Dzogchen texts, is constrasted with Ma rigpa. Because of not knowing [ma rig pa] our real state we enter samsara. Through knowing [rig pa] our real state, we attain liberation.

M

Of course we don't disagree -- it's just the word knowing IMHO is not the best because it implies a thought.

[Malcolm]

I'm not a scholar or translator, but I do feel that rigpa (vidya Skt) does not mean knowledge.

Rigpa, in all Dzogchen texts, is constrasted with Ma rigpa. Because of not knowing [ma rig pa] our real state we enter samsara. Through knowing [rig pa] our real state, we attain liberation.

M

Of course we don't disagree -- it's just the word knowing IMHO is not the best because it implies a thought.

Thought is not a problem for one who has rigpa. It is only a problem for those who do not.

[username]

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.

This is nothing new as it was Osho's novel syncretic business model several years back, a failure, though he made lots of money which is what was important to him in motivation anyway.

[bhakta=poet]

If the metaphor of Indra's Net is in fact borrowed from the Vedas, can someone tell me where in the Vedas this originated?