Tantric sexual bliss vs. dhyanic bliss

[pemachophel]

Ronne,

"since interaction with diety being a internal not perceived external phenomena"

Are you sure you can categorize deity yoga by this simple dualism? My experience suggests to me it's not so simple -- either external or internal -- much less internal and not external? In fact, the transcendence of such dualistic concepts seems to me to be a large part (if not the largest part) of what deity yoga is all about.

[Adamantine]

Well..just personally I guess I would be quite satisfied with Gampopas level of attainment by whatever means he attained it

Just ventureing..... I'd guess Millarepa in Kagyu, since interaction with diety being a internal not perceived external phenomena.....that such would again not approximate sex as we know it to be. But again utilization of certain passageways.

lots of conjecture.. it's better not to project too much about these practices until one actually receives teachings on them.

[ronnewmexico]

PE...you misunderstand my comment...perhaps it is not stated by me correctly. Sex act with consort requires a outside conventional agent a consort.
Diety yoga requires a visualization or perceived object that is not in the conventional sense present. SExual tantra without consort would more closely in this fashion approximate diety but I am comparing them only in the useage of outside conventional agent.Howeever advanced one may consider ones consort it is still a mundane conveentional conceptual object..a person. I am making no intentional statement of simplification of a particular tantra.
I am talking a particular aspect of both tantras.

AD...this is nice to say I'd guess....lots of conjecture.. it's better not to project too much about these practices until one actually receives teachings on them...but really has nothing to do with my statement saying I would be happy with GAmpopa's level of attainment.
As to what is better no offense but I reserve the right to make the determination on what is better or not. I qualify my statement by saying I am venturing.
What you decide if better or worse has value but is not my source of determination.

I am not projecting I am ventureing.

[Adamantine]

I am trying to point out that when you start writing in public about what you think certain secret practices "might" be, and you are merely guessing -- then you are sharing your confusion and your guesses with others who may develop wrong ideas of what these practices entail. This could lead to a negative result both for them and for you potentially, even if it is just increasing confusion, or increasing a negative view of it based on this confusion. If you are happy -not- engaging in these practices at all because you see historic beings such as Gampopa whose level of realization you'd be happy with who did not engage them--- then there is really no need for you to spend any more energy on conjecture about them! If you are interested in them because you have an aspiration to practice them in this or future lives, then make aspiration prayers and through the force of interdependence inevitably the conditions and the teacher will eventually appear to you.

[ronnewmexico]

Yes that's very interesting and I am certain you extend that with compassion..

My comments comply with the restrictions on this site in that regard and as such are not delected by monitor.
Your opinions on what I say...you are welcome to them...no offense personally but they are not mine on this issue.

Have a nice day

[Adamantine]

yeah I wasn't suggesting that you were breaking forum guidelines or trying to censor you-- i am just suggesting your conjecture is probably not helpful for yourself or others.. maybe the opposite. those that have been given the teachings on this have commitments not to speak about them in public so you will not get any clarification if you are on the right or wrong track in your thoughts except from a qualified teacher. so what is the use? i wish you all the best, have a nice day too.

[ronnewmexico]

Well I am receptive to suggestions on things generally if I think people reading what I write know what I write.
I may be at fault for writing things unclearly but nevertheless your first assumption was not what I intended.
I corrected it and you continue on that path as if I had said nothing..which is find..but that accounts for why I take no such no unsolicited suggestion.

The specific was N mentioned that Millararepa did by kagyu not have consort. Which would imply as millarepa is considered as advanced as one may get in this life spiritually, by this line of thinking that Millarepa did perform sexual tantra without consort. It is stated elsewhere to attain full human enlightenment sexual tantra must be employeed to exclusion of other method....that's it sexual tantra..no sexual tantra no human enlightenment.

My commment was a suggestion that.... as no consort was implied.... this thing of sexual tantra was more closely to diety tantra(N's Millarepa mention stated diety) than it was to sexual tantra as we think of it. As I follow Kagyu teachings by majority I feel free to question or elaborate upon this issue as Kagyu see it. There seem distinction on sexual tantra by school.

So this is not making gross elaborations on content fo tantra but discussing a finer point of one thing generally discussed.
And I don't care a bit to know any "secrets" I have enough of my own to deal with. I suspect none on this subject have empowerment for this one tantra as it is realtively rare .Can't say for sure, certainly, but suspect none do. Anyway it was initiated by one of another school, without tantric vow I can conjecture, so the field of discussion is open to those without tantric vow of this.

N's comment I was referencing was this..."but in the later Kagyu histories, only his relationship with the goddess Tseringma is mentioned.

N ...that comment was in reference to another comment on some monastic being humanly enlightened, but apparently not with consort.
N did not actually say by Kagyupa Millarepa practiced sexual tantra but infered in prior statement, other schools state he did.
So I allow that what he may have practiced may have been other by kagyu..to rehash.

YOu jump in and state we are discussing secret tantric practice...we are not really. Historical fact and differences amongst schools on this thing of tantra.
Other comments I have made may approximate that...but those you did not read or see something else in them. But those are clearly qualified, so as not to produce harm. Those were proferred earlier in the discussion.

Me personally...I suspect I may practice some things, as I have some empowerments of sorts and practice some things daily .... I am only guessing. I'd be hard pressed to tell you many things about me or my practice as my mind works in strange ways. My communications perhaps speak to that. Personally I do know that I don't give a flying capital F about sexual tantra....mostly by my take in the west what is called sexual tantra commonly it is excuse for beating off or joyous sex.
Some may have empowerments in that... I suspect few do. Far more discuss it. It is discussed everywhere. Anyone discussing it..in other than general terms they may not discuss it. In general terms I don't believe it violates the vows. So such things about discussing could be said about to everyone.If you had empowerment in this thing how then could you enter into this discussion if so strictly were those vows, as being here even with any comment could be construed as talking about secret tantra.

VEry general only is this discussion to my opinion, not violatating vows, nor producing harm. Myself......a waste of time for me, I have other means I expect are as effective for my spiritual path. I don't criticize others path, but to state one must do one thing and not another....I question it a bit especially if it however superficially seems to prohibit others by gender of other arbitrary things and thusly conflicts with what I know. Though but layperson and not even buddhist may I be with little understanding and no education.
I forget why i am here..on this thread...there was a initial reason...it is long gone.

Hopefully the original poster will not consider this to far from point this video.... ...

DEath as means as I stated earlier..if not the dying to be considered as alive is not dead ....why not dead as means do we not say?
If sex with no male ejaculation yet practiced by male with no consort of male or of female, not really not always...why sex it is called at all...it is not.
Both by my take misnomers...it is in the dying we learn not as dead and thusly more closely to alive than dead and this thing of sex it is of the passageways is this thing not of the sex in and of itself...so there is a point being made...secret point it is not, nor about secret matter....linguistics...it is. nothing more. I am commenting upon linguistics. Not linguini...the wording...what this is called. Before we discuss this thing at all we must be certain we are all refereing to the same thing....if we are to discuss this thing at all...I opt for not at all...but what it is called makes for a good read by my take.

Zombies are not dead or alive they are inbetween....tantra of death is not tantra of dead.
TAntra of sex is called such...but no conventional sex there is or about it...so the video expresses point.

[5heaps]

Vitarka and vicāra don't exist in the 2nd dhyāna already, how could then it be called conceptual? Nirvikalpa-jñāna also exists in common Mahayana.

Because it's one pointedness is a mental concept.

what definition of mental concept are you using?
we cannot say there is a conceptual consciousness in the 2nd dhyana, because that mind is not using dunchis or drachis. so in what way will you explain that the single-pointedness is conceptual?

[Malcolm]

Vitarka and vicāra don't exist in the 2nd dhyāna already, how could then it be called conceptual? Nirvikalpa-jñāna also exists in common Mahayana.

Because it's one pointedness is a mental concept.

what definition of mental concept are you using?
we cannot say there is a conceptual consciousness in the 2nd dhyana, because that mind is not using dunchis or drachis. so in what way will you explain that the single-pointedness is conceptual?

Yes, the mind in the second dhyana is conceptual because it is maintaining equipoise on a conceptual object.

[5heaps]

Yes, the mind in the second dhyana is conceptual because it is maintaining equipoise on a conceptual object.

consider that object, it cant be conceptual, because that object is being held by a nonconceptual mind (ie a mind free from mental images [dunchis are drachis])

[Malcolm]

Yes, the mind in the second dhyana is conceptual because it is maintaining equipoise on a conceptual object.

consider that object, it cant be conceptual, because that object is being held by a nonconceptual mind (ie a mind free from mental images [dunchis are drachis])

All eight dhyanas are conceptual because their object is a concept, therefore, the mind that holds the object is conceptual. It may not be a diffuse conceptual mind, but it is conceptual a mind since it holds a concept, for example, "infinite space".

N

[5heaps]

Yes, the mind in the second dhyana is conceptual because it is maintaining equipoise on a conceptual object.

consider that object, it cant be conceptual, because that object is being held by a nonconceptual mind (ie a mind free from mental images [dunchis are drachis])

All eight dhyanas are conceptual because their object is a concept, therefore, the mind that holds the object is conceptual. It may not be a diffuse conceptual mind, but it is conceptual a mind since it holds a concept, for example, "infinite space".

forget the example of infinite space since its too distracting.. what about all the other concentrations which have as their object specifically characterized objects. are _those_ dhyanas conceptual as well? in what way is the second dhyana which has the mental consciousness as its object a conceptual consciousness?

ps. what do you mean by "diffuse conceptual mind"? is that different than just a standard conceptual consciousness?

[Virgo]

Although I don't know anything 5heaps I will repeat some things my teachers told me, since they were ready to teach but there were no real disciples around to learn anything.

A diffuse mind is one that is not concentrated deeply on an object and is full of hindrances. For example, we always have concentration. It arises with every chitta. Nevertheless, the object is constantly changing, and our concentration is not helped along by the development of mental factors that help it through shamatha and dispel hindrances. It is like a horse, very free. When the mind become deeply concentrated on an object we can enter dhyana (jhana) and we have a concentration without hindrances arising, which goes deeper and deeper. The object of dhyana during the eight concentrations is always a concept though, unless we have deep wisdom and the object becomes nibbana while we are developing one of the eight dhyanas. So whenever a person has any of the eight dhyanas, if they are mundane concentrations, the object is a concept.

A concept is like an image in the mind, or a nimitta of some arising thing and not the thing itself. If our meditation is infinite space, then the object is not infinite space itself, but the thought of infinite space in our mind.

Kevin

[5heaps]

A concept is like an image in the mind, or a nimitta of some arising thing and not the thing itself. If our meditation is infinite space, then the object is not infinite space itself, but the thought of infinite space in our mind.

yes i understand you clearly.
however, a conceptual consciousness is extremely coarse and unsettling...unsettling in the sense that a person necessarily does not have a capacity to distinguish between actual objects and mental semblances of objects (ie. mental images/categories/dunchis/don-spyi s). furthermore this type of mind relies on these mental semblances to access objects, it cannot get at them directly.

the whole point of single-pointed meditation is to pacify the conceptual consciousness and have only a nonconceptual mental consciousness arise (ie. a consciousness which does not use mental semblances to cognize objects).

eventually this nonconceptual mental consciousness it developed sufficiently where it can cognize objects beyond the boundary of ordinary cognition aka clairvoyance.. do you understand clairvoyances to be conceptual as well?

[Virgo]

eventually this nonconceptual mental consciousness it developed sufficiently where it can cognize objects beyond the boundary of ordinary cognition aka clairvoyance.. do you understand clairvoyances to be conceptual as well?

Of course.

You need to re-read Namdrols post about non-coneptual bliss.

Kevin

[5heaps]

eventually this nonconceptual mental consciousness it developed sufficiently where it can cognize objects beyond the boundary of ordinary cognition aka clairvoyance.. do you understand clairvoyances to be conceptual as well?

Of course.

You need to re-read Namdrols post about non-coneptual bliss.

which one? i didnt see any explanation in any of them to my liking.
thats because as i said, dhyanas are by definition free from relying on mental images, and have specifically characterized objects as their object of engagement (in other words the mind is dealing with a real object not an unreal one ie. actual physical form instead of a mental semblance of physical form)

thus, if the mind is not using a mental image, and the object held is itself not a mental semblance, what part of the cognition merits the name "conceptual"?

[Virgo]

thats because as i said, dhyanas are by definition free from relying on mental images

Sure.

Kevin

[5heaps]

thats because as i said, dhyanas are by definition free from relying on mental images

Sure.

youre being sarcastic right..
then what you are saying is that the clairvoyances are inferences..
dhyanas are just very strongly held inferences.. the mind is very strongly positioned on something which is not necessarily there..does that sound right to you?

[Virgo]

thats because as i said, dhyanas are by definition free from relying on mental images

Sure.

youre being sarcastic right..
then what you are saying is that the clairvoyances are inferences..
dhyanas are just very strongly held inferences.. the mind is very strongly positioned on something which is not necessarily there..does that sound right to you?

Yes. That's close. But it is not that the mind is held on something that is not really there. It is held on a concept and while the concept is there, it is not the same as the thing it represents. it is just a mental image or idea, etc.

Sorry for being so terse earlier.

Kevin

[5heaps]

It is held on a concept and while the concept is there, it is not the same as the thing it represents.

but, there is no thing that it represents. it is just a deluded synthesis imputed onto minute parts, and the more the concentration builds the greater the absorption on the delusion.

you dont want to agree that clairvoyances are inferences.. you should want to say that just because a mental image is involved, this does not necessitate that the cognition is an inference (it only necessitates that it is conceptual..not all conceptual cognitions are inferential cognitions)