Dzogchen via intrisic Kundalini

[trd]

You want me to answer you as a Buddhist, referencing, recognizing and interpreting such text as you have quoted. I am not a Buddhist and do not necessarily agree with everything that the Buddha supposedly taught. As much as I want to avoid labels, if pressed I would have to say that I am an advaita vedantin. Having said that, there is common ground between what Buddha taught and Vedic knowledge. Gosh, even the theravada and mahayanas can't agree with each other. This is why I have been trying to stick to direct experience but it keeps going back to scripture!

So in my own terms I will say this. Unbounded awareness is separate from mind (thoughts) which is part of the five aggregates which are impermanent. It is not associated with the unconditioned as you think I imply. I don't know where you got that from.

Your second implication is that the unawakened will die without any continuity to progress in another birth. But I clearly said that awareness is not time bound and is therefore not destroyed. It is this that is your true nature or "essence". Some people put forward the view that Buddha taught nihilsm. I don't agree.

It seems you are having problems conceiving of continuity without individuality. And that is perfectably understandable. The egoic mind is not able to rationalise this because the mind cannot exist without individuality. You are asking the mind to destroy itself which is exactly what you have to do.

That is the ultimate game plan!

[RandomSand]

Wow, these are great questions, rocky.

You started your post from the position of knowledge class c, not understanding class b, and then go on to ask questions about class a !

Sanatana Dharma is very poetic about class a. Buddhism tends to reject class a and tell us that class b is all we need to know.

[trd]

Wow, these are great questions, rocky.

You started your post from the position of knowledge class c, not understanding class b, and then go on to ask questions about class a !

Sanatana Dharma is very poetic about class a. Buddhism tends to reject class a and tell us that class b is all we need to know.

Sanatana Dharma may be very poetic but it also has rigid reasoning.

[trd]

By its nature, Sanatana Dharma is:

Experience based rather than belief based.

Without any ideological divisions.

Beyond any historical date of founding.

The process of growth, which comes from the seed.

Inherent in, and inclusive of all.

Applicable to all people of all places and times.

In the world, while above the world.

God-centered rather than prophet-centered.

Devoid of sectarianism or denominationalism.

Both immanent and transcendent.

The whole and the parts.

Loving of all and excluding of none.

The universal flow of Dharma,

regardless of what name you call it,

whether Dharma or some other name,

has eternally existed.

It has been before any of

the great teachers were born.

It is not better than, or alternative to,

but is inclusive of all.

Dharma is that out of which

our earth and humanity itself emerged.

Dharma not only is,

but always was, and always will be.

To live in alignment with,

and to know the true nature

of that Sanatana Dharma

is one of the ways of describing

the higher goal of life.

[RandomSand]

What is the ultimate game plan?

So Shakti and Shiva are both on the bed of Braman.

Shakti whispers to Shiva "Bring yourself unto me so that I may come".

To which the Buddhist replies: That's enough of that hanky panky!

Shakti says "Worry not, my passion is sacrificed thus".

Shiva just can't stop doing it to Shakti! Can't blame him really .

Edited February 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

Of course you have to appreciate that modern Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism all emerged from Sanatana Dharma.

[rockyysdt]

Unbounded awareness is separate from mind (thoughts) which is part of the five aggregates which are impermanent. It is not associated with the unconditioned as you think I imply. I don't know where you got that from.

Your second implication is that the unawakened will die without any continuity to progress in another birth. But I clearly said that awareness is not time bound and is therefore not destroyed. It is this that is your true nature or "essence". Some people put forward the view that Buddha taught nihilsm. I don't agree.

It seems you are having problems conceiving of continuity without individuality. And that is perfectably understandable. The egoic mind is not able to rationalise this because the mind cannot exist without individuality. You are asking the mind to destroy itself which is exactly what you have to do.

That is the ultimate game plan!

Hi trd.

I am open to awareness without individuality.

My understanding of awareness was that it's the product of a combination of "consciousness", "perception", "mental formations" & "sensation" all of which cannot function outside of "form".

These are all skandhas, which are impermanent & conditioned.

I thought that without the skandhas there cannot be awareness.

In an earlier reference you indicated that the Buddha has probably been misrepresented by others and we may never know exactly what he may have been teaching.

Is it possible that later followers wanted to believe in immortality and interpreted the Buddha literally rather than satirically?

Is it possible, that the Buddha taught in a way that was engaging with the society of the time.

A society steeped in religion, in which every facet of ones life was set out from birth until death.

Is it possible that by weaving message into stories he allowed those with set beliefs to hear what they wanted to hear, whilst at the same time taught his core message whilst lampooning the establishment.

His message of dhuka, anicca & anatta aren't dependent on the metaphysical (that beyond the real world).

Examples:

He demoted Brahman, by placing him in samsara with the rest of us.

By lampooning Brahman, rather than confirming his existence, he's effectively sidestepping the Gods.

By re mapping dependent origination the Buddha takes it out of the metaphysical and back into the real.

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

As we don't know what the Buddha himself was attempting to teach is it fair to say that either:

• Pure awareness with boundless, & timeless quality exists beyond and is independent of the 5 skandhas or
• Awareness cannot exist outside of the 5 skandhas.

Edited February 14, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

I think you both need to agree on just what "Awareness" is before anything else is said.

Would "Awareness" be different from "Unbounded awareness" ?

Edited February 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

The first of the two options. If it is unbounded, unchanging, without attributes, unconditioned, formless, outside of time and space, non dual, then it cannot be part of or be touched or influenced in any way by manifest duality. But if it is non dual, it is all encompassing and therefore must also include duality. It is neither existence or non existence but beyond both.

In advaita it is called the Self or Atma. I told you I wasn't a Buddhist. Atma is all that exists.

By the way in an earlier post you suggested atma was soul or spirit. That is not a correct translation, but it seems that Buddhists often translate it as soul. Soul suggests something individual and finite. Atma is universal self. It is all that exists. Please don't ask me to justify this in buddhist terms.

[trd]

I think you both need to agree on just what "Awareness" is before anything else is said.

Would "Awareness" be different from "Unbounded awareness" ?

I generally use the term awareness to denote that which is unchanging and unbounded, and consciousness which is individual and impermanent.

[RandomSand]

@TRD, are explicitly saying that all which exists; exists within Unbounded awareness... including any form of awareness itself?

[trd]

@TRD, are explicitly saying that all which exists; exists within Unbounded awareness... including any form of awareness itself?

There is no proof of the existence of the world of name and form.

In deep sleep there is no mind or body or world

In dream there is mind together with a dream body but no world

In the waking state of conscious there is mind, body and world

If all these objects don't exist in all states, where is the reality? The only thing that exists in all these states is atma. When you rise from sleep, you say you slept well. You did not cease to exist. World only appears when individual consciousness appears and perceives objects as imagination of the mind. There is no universe without consciousness. The world does not independently proclaim "I exist".

[RandomSand]

So if I would counter as follows; "There's no proof of that which exists without existence (i.e we can't prove atma in the same way we can't prove god)"... which I think is a valid point....

Would you then reply that existence itself (i.e my name is randomsand and I exist) is proof of atma?

Edited February 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

So if I would counter as follows; "There's no proof of that which exists without existence (i.e we can't prove atma in the same way we can't prove god)"... which I think is a valid point....

Would you then reply that existence itself (i.e my name is randomsand and I exist) is proof of atma?

Think about what you mean by existence. Existence exists in the mind. The "sense" of existence is cognised in the mind by a continual flow of thoughts which create experiences from the subject/object relationship of the mind as knower and the object that is to be known through the intermediary of seeing or perception. Each experience is immediately consigned to memory whether the event happened one year ago or one second ago. So we are always living in the past. As each experience unfolds, even though it happens quite spontaneously and is uncaused, the ego mind claims ownership as the doer without realising it is accessing a memory from the past, but mistakes it for the unfolding present which it is somehow creating from nothing. This wrong identification with mind and body causes separation from one's true nature which is Self.

It makes no sense to say that existence is proof of atma as an idea. The unbounded cannot be proved by that which is limited or bound. In the same way that the "I am" thought is self evident even though it appears and disappears, the atma is also self evident and cannot be proved or revealed by intellectual conceptualisation. It is not possible to be anything other than atma, your true nature. It just gets forgotten because of wrong identification with mind, body and world. This is why I keep pointing to practice rather than scripture.

If you have never been to London, I could describe in meticulous detail every street, every building. Then I could describe every item in every building and so on until there was no single item I had not described in the whole city. But unless you go to London you cannot say you know London.

[RandomSand]

Thanks for the explanation.

[RandomSand]

trd,

Please could you summarise the correct way to meditate. Not too technical. In layman's terms, as it were.

You are good at explaining these things and your words could be very beneficial to many here. Certainly I'd appreciate it very much.

Edited February 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

trd,

Please could you summarise the correct way to meditate. Not too technical. In layman's terms, as it were.

You are good at explaining these things and your words could be very beneficial to many here. Certainly I'd appreciate it very much.

You are very welcome to ask but I would only do so one to one in person or over skype.

Have your credit card ready. (only joking)

[RandomSand]

I'm not ready to join your cult, dude.

I also heard the most dangerous cults required no credit card,.. Pay with your life.. or your soul.

Edited February 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

I'm not ready to join your cult, dude.

I also heard the most dangerous cults required no credit card,.. Pay with your life.. or your soul.

Given your intelligent remarks so far, I have to say that last comment took me completely by surprise! LOL. Edited February 15, 2014 by trd

[rockyysdt]

There is no proof of the existence of the world of name and form.

In deep sleep there is no mind or body or world

In dream there is mind together with a dream body but no world

In the waking state of conscious there is mind, body and world

If all these objects don't exist in all states, where is the reality? The only thing that exists in all these states is atma. When you rise from sleep, you say you slept well. You did not cease to exist. World only appears when individual consciousness appears and perceives objects as imagination of the mind. There is no universe without consciousness. The world does not independently proclaim "I exist".

The only reason why there is apparent no world & no body & no mind is because consciousness is deactivated.

It is possible to have a world without consciousness, but this doesn't mean that world doesn't exist.

Even if there's a time lag, and even if they are impermanent & conditioned, the 5 skandhas facilitate consciousness.

In an infinite universe, the vacuum of space could go on forever, with star systems, dust, & cosmic particles here and there.

Although one could say this vacuum is empty, void, nothing there, it does take up space, therefore it is boundless & timeless.

This doesn't mean it has a consciousness.

At my place of work, loud music of dubious quality, is played over the p.a.

Although it is background, I find it is quite stressful and very tiring when subjected to it for long periods.

If I'm lucky to have it switched off, the contrast can be startling.

I immediately feel more at ease and my stress levels drop off.

You could say that life facilitated by our skandhas results in a similar overload with resultant suffering (dhuka).

We are bombarded by mind clutter/chatter with resultant conditioned physical/mental/emotional responses.

Naturally if one silences the mind (meditation), one then experiences the tranquility of stillness of mind.

This eliminates the conditioned physical/mental/emotional responses causing us to experience our natural state, perhaps boundless and timeless at its best.

This doesn't mean that there is some kind of collective consciousness which neither exists nor doesn't exist, which resides outside of the influence of our skanhas, and which is boundless, & timeless.

Isn't taking it that extra step entering into the relm of religion.

Aren't such things fueled by the ego which craves immortality?

We have irrefutable evidence that consciousness, no matter how limited, functions within the 5 skandhas, and that through practice we can still the mind and experience our true nature.

To say that Awakening is to reveal a boundless, timeless awareness which is not individual and exists outside of the 5 skandhas is a theory, isn't it?

One of many theories associated with religion.

When we speak of religions, which one is the true one if any?

Isn't it much better to focus on practice revealing our true nature?

If it takes us to another level (metaphysical) then this is a bonus, but isn't belief in what is theory and speculation dangerous?

Don't we end up searching for our beliefs rather than opening ourselves to what is?

I don't really like labels.

If I say I follow the Buddhas teachings, it would involve his practice (8 fold path).

I agree with focusing on practice, as his teachings may, or probably have, been altered by ego.

Edited February 15, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Religion as a believe system is ignorance.

What is this true nature you refer to?

[trd]

>It is possible to have a world without consciousness, but this doesn't mean that world doesn't exist.

How do you know. Is that a belief?

[trd]

>Naturally if one silences the mind (meditation), one then experiences the tranquility of stillness of mind.

>This eliminates the conditioned physical/mental/emotional responses causing us to experience our natural state, perhaps >boundless and timeless at its best.

Perhaps boundless? Is it or isn't it? Are you saying that this so called natural state to which you refer can be one or the other. If it is timeless "at its best" this suggests a duality, a matter of degree or progression from one state to another.

[trd]

>To say that Awakening is to reveal a boundless, timeless awareness which is not individual and exists outside of the 5 skandhas >is a theory, isn't it?

>One of many theories associated with religion.

I have no time for religion. What is it about individuality that is the sticking point for you?

Individuality is based on difference. One individual is different from another individual because of differences. If you accept timeless, unbounded awareness, where are the differences? There cannot be differences in non dual awareness.

Edited February 15, 2014 by trd

[trd]

>Isn't it much better to focus on practice revealing our true nature?

Yes. But what does this mean to you.

>If it takes us to another level (metaphysical) then this is a bonus.........

Now it sounds like you are talking about religion.

[rockyysdt]

>Isn't it much better to focus on practice revealing our true nature?

Yes. But what does this mean to you.

>If it takes us to another level (metaphysical) then this is a bonus.........

Now it sounds like you are talking about religion.

What is this true nature you refer to?

How do you know. Is that a belief?

Perhaps boundless? Is it or isn't it? Are you saying that this so called natural state to which you refer can be one or the other. If it is timeless "at its best" this suggests a duality, a matter of degree or progression from one state to another.

I have no time for religion. What is it about individuality that is the sticking point for you?

Individuality is based on difference. One individual is different from another individual because of differences. If you accept timeless, unbounded awareness, where are the differences? There cannot be differences in non dual awareness. Yes. But what does this mean to you.

Religion needn't be associated with the classic religions.

Can't it refer to anything relating to the "here after", or to do with continuing in some essence after cessation of the form, whether it be with a God, or as a timeless collective cosmic awareness?

Don't most who subscribe to a particular religion call it the truth while reference to others they call religion?

Belief & religion are synonymous as none are proven.

In many one must die, whilst others require lifelong practices with no guarantees.

Although one can keep an open mind on the subject (agnostic), isn't attaching to any particular theory a form of clinging?

What practice means to me is to become aware of that which I'm not currently aware.

To travel to ever finer levels of awareness which may reveal more subtler levels of what actually is.

Without a pre conceived idea of what it may yield, practice is a way of becoming conscious/aware of it (true nature).

The awareness you speak of is to be aware of everything all at once (infinite).

If possible then this would be quite an experience.

Then again, if the experience is universal, that is the same no matter where this fathom long carcass exists, then one needn't be connected to a collective (atman) to experience it.

Edited February 15, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

When the knower indoctrinates; it becomes profanity. In the belief of the profane; a cult is herded. When the herd indoctrinates others based on these profanities; we have a religion.

Edited February 15, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

Then again, if the experience is universal, that is the same no matter where this fathom long carcass exists, then one needn't be connected to a collective (atman) to experience it.

Atma is universal self. It is all that exists.

[sabaijai]

Just a note from the Ego.

Kundalini. Not kunalindi.

I have just corrected the title

[sabaijai]

Of course you have to appreciate that modern Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism all emerged from Sanatana Dharma.

For Orthodox Hindus, yes.

For others, it's simply another denomination.