Motova wrote: I had always had a magnetic attraction towards the paranormal, specifically psychics from a very early age which never went away.
Andrew108 wrote:Let me put it really simply. There is no 'third eye'. There are no horns on a rabbit. It is possible to construct an idea of 'third eye' just as it is possible to photoshop a rabbit with horns, but these are both conceptual constructs. The 'third eye' construct is typically a western construct/misunderstanding. So it is not like you can go to a doctor or even Tibetan lama and ask them to do something with this 'third eye' of yours. Here we are getting into new age fantasy about being able to open a third eye in order to access higher states of consciousness. It is a dangerous and misleading path to follow.
But then what about central channel and chakras and so on? It would also be a mistake to view them as biological phenomena. Why? Because we are giving them a size and location when infact they can be as big as the universe or as thin as a thread. If we are making them biological facts then we are getting into Lobsang Rampa fiction.
They are related to our energy but we shouldn't make anything of them. It all comes down to the teacher's instructions and to get a bit of knowledge about these things before been given the practice is very dangerous. I repeat that buddhists don't make objects. This is very important. It is misleading and dangerous to indulge fantasies in this way. Practicing Tsalung Tigle depends 100% on devotion. Can't get the fruit of the practice without devotion. Of course some practioners think they can get some knowledge and do things by themselves but it really isn't possible.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:tobes wrote:
I''m not sure what your point is here. If by fictitious you mean 'illusory' - in the sense of conventional (saṃvṛti) - then would you also advocate not going to a doctor when you have a chest pain, not eating and not drinking? Because your physical body is just as illusory as your subtle body. Treating them wisely does not imply treating them as non-existent.
This third eye you speak of is not illusory in the sense that it is dependently arisen, but the sense that it it just a product of imagination the syllable OM at the forehead is just that and corresponds to the enlightened body, not any third eye. It does not have to be developed, though it is practiced with, for sure. Then the central channel's opening is on top of the head, so that isn't the third eye. And the wisdom that cognizes emptiness is not spoken of as residing at the level associated in new age ideology as the third eye. The only time I've heard it used in Vajrayana was in English and by a Tibetan master trying to couch his language in terms he thought his particular western, new agey audience could relate to, and then it was just a metaphor for having opened up to one's own wisdom.
Now I don't mean to be saying "don't believe in that third eye business," but just speaking on it in relation to what Vajrayana and Dzogchen say. By all means, if this belief speaks to you or comforts you or you just plain like it, then have at it. Just don't say it's part of Buddhism.
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:In addition we have iconography of Chakrasamvara, Vajrayogini.
Adamantine wrote:Clearly wisdom beings are portrayed with "third eyes" for a reason. Substantiating anything as real and solid, whether gross level or subtle level it is problematic. But denying it's relative condition doesn't help. In Vajrayana there are subtle channels and elaborate maps for them. Of course, they don't correspond to the limitations the grosser phenomenon are conditioned by, this does not make them non-existent in a relative sense though.
Andrew108 wrote:When you believe that empty rainbows appear and therefore exist in some way, albeit relatively, you are mistaken. And that applies also for your worship of deities. If Motova wants to concretize his experience and others want to give him further reason to do that then what can I do?
I could continue to talk about how the iconography has been misunderstood. I could continue to talk about how the teachings on subtle body don't reify the subtle body creating specifics (third eye). I could continue to talk about how the teachings on subtle body need to be underpinned by a deep knowledge of Nagarjuna's writings and devotion to the teacher. But then it doesn't really matter. Good advice counts for little these days.
Andrew108 wrote: if we try to establish objects or experiences and follow after them as 'i' or 'other', even though we understand intellectualy they are empty
You can get an idea of the importance of the practices of subtle body here. They are profound methods. They bring about natural confidence. They are not ends in themselves. Or objects in themselves. .
Andrew108 wrote:When you believe that empty rainbows appear and therefore exist in some way, albeit relatively, you are mistaken. And that applies also for your worship of deities.
Adamantine wrote:Andrew108 wrote: if we try to establish objects or experiences and follow after them as 'i' or 'other', even though we understand intellectualy they are empty
Who in this conversation was ever doing such a thing?You can get an idea of the importance of the practices of subtle body here. They are profound methods. They bring about natural confidence. They are not ends in themselves. Or objects in themselves. .
Who was positing otherwise?
I think you my friend, are chasing rainbows yourself. . .
Namgyal wrote:Andrew108 wrote:When you believe that empty rainbows appear and therefore exist in some way, albeit relatively, you are mistaken. And that applies also for your worship of deities.
Perhaps you are conflating conventional and ultimate views, for so-called conventional beings, deities are very real. As for 'the subtle body' it exists in Hinduism, Taoism and even Shamanism. My personal recommendation for an excellent Canadian Lama would be; http://www.karmathinleyrinpoche.com/
What Greg has said here is correct. Coming down to the ground is quite difficult but necessary. Ego wants you to fly. This is the problem all genuine practitioners face. So you are not alone. But I think all will be o.k.
If students concretize the channels then they will cause endless problems for themselves and others.
I can say with 100% certainty that buddhism is
Now nonexistent phenomena (med-pa) are those that cannot be validly known, either conventionally or ultimately, by a mind that’s focusing on superficial or deepest truths. Take, for instance, a nonexistent phenomenon like rabbit horns (that’s the classic one that they always use), or chicken lips or turtle hair, anything like that. It cannot be validly known by a mind that is focusing on superficial truth – in other words, appearances. It could be nonvalidly known; you could have a hallucination of turtle hair – that can occur. But it’s a nonexistent phenomenon because it can’t be validly known. And, similarly, another nonexistent phenomenon would be true existence, truly established existence; it can’t be known by a mind that validly focuses on the deepest truth. Nevertheless, it could be nonvalidly known, distortedly known, because due to our habits of grasping for truly established existence we think that we see it. We think that that’s how things exist, but that’s not validly known, so it is nonexistent. It’s not validly knowable. It cannot be known by a valid mind that validly focuses on deepest truth of things.
This is the true rabbit's horn in this dialogue. Nobody has ever posited such a thing.It would also be a mistake to view them as biological phenomena.
Andrew108 wrote:You need to know what 'purity' means with the context of vajrayana. Especially you need to know how vajrayana is all about methods that establish appearances as being pure. Purity here refers to no arising, abiding or ceasing of appearances. Appearances are beyond arising, abiding and ceasing. This is where we are headed when we take on practices that follow vajrayana traditions. In the end we see appearances as spontaneous and un-established expressions of the natural condition. This is very far from dabbling in psychic experiences.
As buddhists we are interested in realizing the nature of reality from it's own side and not from our concept of it. There is no 'I' or 'me' or 'other' in the natural state and this is another example of purity. So if we try to establish objects or experiences and follow after them as 'i' or 'other', even though we understand intellectualy they are empty, then it's not much more than being snared by illusion. We may think we interpret emptiness correctly but really we are applying emptiness as a label.
Jamgon Kongtrul 3rd pointed out in his commentary on 'creation/completion' that 'All elements which are used on the Vajrayana path have a profound meaning.' The channels and chakras have a profound meaning. They are not to be practised to bolster a persons ambitions or foster false beliefs. To practice in the way you have mentioned i.e to clear the third eye and so on, is to practice in an impure way. It is impure because we still cling to belief that object things are real and exist without having the result of the practice; which is an experiential knowledge of purity.
Meditating in an impure way just makes our many sufferings and delusions increase. I'm sure Tobes that you wouldn't want that to be the case. So if you can practice this 'clearing of the third eye' in a pure way then go ahead. But then if you have knowledge of purity then why would you need to clear anything away? There would be a firm confidence in the experience.
If we take the case of Milarepa and his confidence, he sang:
'The true nature of appearances is that they've never been born. If birth seems to happen it's just clinging, nothing more.'
'I've gained confidence that there is no arising. This swept away taking past and future lives as two.'
'Whenever I'm meditating on tsalung tigle, the principle channels are three and the chakras are four. My craving consumed, this body seems to vanish. Elixir refined into letter unceasingly shines........Appearance and emptiness blend into one, what bliss! Emptiness no longer intellect's realm, what relief! Confusion consumed in space, what a wonderful sight!'
You can get an idea of the importance of the practices of subtle body here. They are profound methods. They bring about natural confidence. They are not ends in themselves. Or objects in themselves. These are key points. Milarepa isn't establishing the channels and chakras as being true. He is using a method so as to bring appearances to a pure level. Which here means seeing that appearances are never born. No clinging. No applying the label emptiness. Unborn appearance as emptiness. And so on. What is not established is that there is a 'third eye' that should be unblocked and that exists seperately (even as empty appearance) from the practices of tsalung tigle.