Re: Jen's Paradise

On Jul 22, 7:38 am, "buddhapest" <pestaroo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<norbu_tra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1185105123.701162.272190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



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.comhasa 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?

it really isn't an act of agression to shut
off the 'input' from the senses, since you
cannot literally shut off the senses, you are
actually detaching or dispassioning the
identification factor which feels that it has
a necessitation in that sensory data input
to the tune of feeding and juicing that
narcissistic core of the ego which by
dispassioning that factor it may then be judged
to be some type of passive agression but
consider how that memory bundle called
ego operates in the first place and how it
calls forth the ego's security addiction
satisfaction agenda and how behavioural
idiosyncracies tend to take priority in that
filtered human viewpoint due to one's genetic
heritage so that one bows and scrapes to that
ego only to wake up the next day with almost
the very same commands nailed to one's forehead
to simply once again try to satisfy the safety and
security addictions that the ego needs to have met.
without some type of effort to relinquish those needs
of the memory bundle called ego, one will ever be
a slave to the proclivities of those security addictions
and be stuck in the rut of the human agenda right up
to one's death.


Agreed as to the cross tradition wording of the approach - it's about
getting beyond the knee-jerk memory
constructs that happen secound after secound...so to speak...but since
you can do that with your eyes
open or closed why bother to shut your eyes if you are awake? If you
are asleep, sure, it would be creepy to have your eyes open, but since
you are awake....jeepers...all that sense energy stuff is the rainbow
of life, not ego...
ego does every thing it can to not be overwhelmed by sense energy lest
itg be washed away by forgetting itself in
non-dual experience.

ideas on cross-tradition translation?

The human agenda thingy is again a cross tradition thingy. In the
buddhy thingamajig humans/all beings are considered basically good/
awake, the bs arising as fluke, hence being termed
"ignoring" (avidya)...perhaps the
two traditions are starting fron the glass being half-empty or half-
full to go in different directions to connect the circle and arrive at
the the same other shore...?

if so how can we, or should we even bother, to have an agreed upon way
of speaking about human life?


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?

'dead' may be the wrong word to use but
even buddha termed it the 'undead' or the
'unbecome' since the state that has been born of
identification, that idea that you have become
something, this human agenda, is totally false
and sometimes drastic measures must ensue in
order to point out the falsity of that identification
principle. we can't ask a dog to preform like a
monkey because in lifeforms of that caliber the
identification principle as to the basic consciousness
is all dog inclusive at that point and there is no chance
of awareness seeing itself and breaking free from that
identification principle. there is however a factor of
so called auspiciousness in that beingness, when adjusting
to that human mode, does have the opportunity to see
beyond the human identification principle whereas in
the aforementioned dog principle, the vehicle by which
the dog principle identifies doesn't have that opportunity.

Animals can break reactional awareness as well as humans according to
the Jataka
tales of the Buddhas previous lives (so to speak)...such as when the
bodhisatta was Silver, the king of the dogs, and was more awake than
the humans around him and taught the meaning of justice to the Raja
who was killing all the wild dogs... (...hmmm ...i love the
jatakas....)....Animals are similar to humans, some given to knee-jerk
reaction, some to being on the spot without memory drag...Even dogs
can get beyond dog reaction, otherwise they'd just be robots and never
go higher or lower in facility of awareness...

Siva's son ended up with a whoppin elephant head, right? Hanuman made
krsna possible...



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.

to me, the kundalini is just a fancy name
for the lifeforce-consciousness which can
become quite animated and magical
depending upon the proclivities of the
vehicle by which it coagulates and intensifies.
no matter what though, that kundalini is still
the basis for the mula-maya, the main principle
by which physical manifestation arises, maintains
and eventually dissolves and by which no humans,
no avatars can negotiate pause. the basic tenets
and principles of that consciousness will continue
no matter how many buddhas, christs or krishnas
arise.

In the Buddha's teaching there is no maya. That's one of the big gulfs
between the hindu and buddhist ways of speaking...Again, this just
being a different way of describing life and liberation as far as i
can see. In the Buddhist tradionion lfe is described as being maya-
like when we seek from it what it cannot deliver. Since everything
conditioned is transitory if we seek for permanance life seems like
maya, a mirage. Since everyrthing is composite if we seek for identity
everything seems like maya. Sinced everything is without resolution if
we seek resotion everything seems to be maya. The illusion-like
feeling of life is based only on our seeking unreal goals. Life
itself, so to speak is the straight shot, snap, not an illusion at
all....so kundalini is regarded as a mistaken concept in buddhist
tantra, just as her purusha is...right foot on the corpse of shakti to
proclaim that what is is, left foot on the corpse of siva to proclaim
no dwelling even in "neither perception or non-perception"...

Some "Hindu" teachers i have heard have said the same thing in other
ways...some Christian, Shinto, Bon, etc teachers as well, for what
thats worth...i'm just curious if there is a way to bridge the hundu
vs. buddhist way of descibing practice and liberation....maybe there
isn't....

ideas?

.