Re: Jen's Paradise

On Jul 19, 9:19 pm, "buddhapest" <pestaroo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@xxxxxxxxx[remove]> wrote in message

news:13a01gqkqdr7k53@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Perhaps you (Jen, buddhapest) have all these already,
butwww.scribd.comhas a bunch of Hinduist tracts.

Tang Huyen

thank you.

i've got a shelf in my bedroom closet
that is jam packed with cassettes, cds,
and vcr tapes that i purchased over the years
on spirituality and an entire bookcase in
my dining room filled with spiritual books.
i had also bookmarked dozens of websites
over the years but after a while you don't
hear anything new from spiritual teachers and
once you glimpse that unborn, unbecome
state, if you will, all the books and whatnot
are simply redundancies and don't even
describe, define or point out 'that' state.

hi,

i pretty much agree with all your posts regarding the aim (so to
speak) of practice...
but...the description of practice as eliminating the senses and human
sensibilities
i find a verbal oddity. This might just be a differnt way of speaking
from the Buddhist
and Shaivic traditions in modern times, or perhaps not...

i'm not questioning your practice or results here. Please let's be
clear about that - this isn't
a sectarian put-down or whatever sort of bs - i want to explore the
ways of practice and liberation...
perhaps differing ways of describing practice or different ways of
practice...

in Buddhist samatha the practice is done to note and accept whatever
arises - the peacefulness
arising from there being no struggle whatsoever...If one were to close
one's eyes and shut off the
senses that would be an act of aggression, trying to push something
away - likewise if one were to
reject sleepiness/eyes-closed in the later stages of practice that
would also be aggression -
whatever arises is regarded with simple mindfulness...heaven, hell,
samsara, nirvana, whatever...
note it as thinking and return to breath/posture/senses - "in the seen
shall just be the seen..." so
to speak. No aggression, no pushing something away or grasping
something in...

So question one is why shut off the senses to find liberation?

Question two is about this idea of rejection human interests/instincts/
etc as being counter to liberation.
One of the traditions i've studied in regards human existence as being
marginally tainted by confusion
and ignorance about liberation, but nonetheless basically good, not
needing improving . All the crap
is due to confusion and grasping, and when that is let go of human
nature arises as good as any other
nature - with vibrant awareness, warmth, insight, etc. This again
following from the practice of letting go,
so that in the seen there is just the seen, and in a human life there
is just a human life. This life is
liberation - it isn't reducible to words such as life death good bad
etc - and, being beyond such words
while "alive" is certainly beyond such words after some outside notion
of a word "death" - both notions
being differing ways of trying to gild the lily....

So question two is why reject the human and say that all is naturally
dead?

A third question arises about all practice being about kundalini. This
is perhaps a bit more technical in
terms of translation and cross-tradition translation...very much
complicated by the intermingling of the last
900 or years of Buddhist and Saivic tantra...I.E., in Buddhist tantra
the buddhas are depicted as
standing on the corpses of Siva and his sakti - rejecting both....This
seems to be related to the historical
Buddha having studied with the teachers of his time and having
mastered the formless samathas of
"nothingness" and "neither perception nor nonperception" - His
teachers wanted to make him their successors
but he saw, as the texts say, that neither of these ways lead to true
liberation from samsara, and, rejecting them,
set out for unknown shores....However, after his liberation and
insight into the the four noble truths and the
eightfold path the first people he thought might have the least dust
in their eyes and so understand what
he had realized were these two teachers...sadly, though, both had died
in the previous decade. So he
started teaching in the context of the Jain-ish renunciates he had
been practicing with (with failed results)
for the last five years years...a compromise...

So question three is about this kundalini thingy...In Saiva Tantra
it's basically prakriti being raised up to lay down
at the feet of Siva, that leading to the cessation of Maya
etc....Buddhist Tantra does not subscribe to the notion of Maya,
rather staying with the idea that in the seen there is just the seen.
This seen, oddly enough, is not some
female illusion waiting to dissolve on her lord's feet - the seen is
male, skillful means to help others to liberation,
and the female is openness (beyond this that or the
other...nonmentation, not getting stuck in words, etc etc)...

it seems to me that letting whatever do what it will is just drifting
clouds of fluff...but there is still some
brilliance and warmth and openness - there's no need to cook that up
it just happens - no need for kundalini.
It's "candali", the "terrible" that consumes all notions, not some
"coiled-power" that wants to lay in worship
at God's footsesses.

But, duh, i've always liked what you have said on these boards, so
obviously your practice has more or less worked to a similar extent
that my practice has more or less worked at least to the point that we
can laugh and recognize each other. i bring this doctrinal
buddhadharna stuff up because it is a buddhadharma group and it would
be rillllly cool to try and figure out how all these words and
meditation techs work in practice.

you is welcome to kick muh *** in divine reply,
maiti,
- n.

.

Quantcast