|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
stevenbhow
Japan
352 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 16 2008 : 03:17:39 AM
|
Hello All,
I just found this site. It seems like there is a lot of good info about Kundalini and Yoga here. I had a few questions.
I'm a long time lay follower of Tibetan Buddhism. About a year ago I received Deeksha from a friend of mine, also a long time Buddhist, but much more devout than me. As a result of the Deeksha I had a Kundalini awakening. At the time I actually didn't know what had happened. I talked to my friend about it, but he basically said, "Yeah, sometimes during Deeksha you experience stuff like that." Since he was a Zen Buddhist I thought he was taking the Zen Buddhist's view of ignoring the fireworks, so to speak, getting on with the meditation.
Later, I talked with another friend who'd spent years studying with several Gurus in India, and had had his Kundalini awakened,about my experience and he was the one that told me I'd had a Kundalini awakening.
Since then I've been doing a lot of research on my own. I also bought a Kundalini meditation DVD and have had some amazing experiences with it. Corny, I know, but it seems to work for me.
But in my heart I feel I'm still a Buddhist. If anything, my Kundalini awakening his given my more drive and enthusiasm to continue studying Tibetan Buddhism.
My questions then concern duel practices (Buddhism and Yoga) and the need for a guru.
I've been reading a lot of Vajrayana Buddhism lately. Alot of what I've read seems very similiar to the Yoga/Hindu Guru Kundalini practices. My friend that spent time in India advised me to find a Guru (Yoga/Hindu) and begin studying with him or her. I'm considering it and have done some research, but I'm still much more inclined towards Buddhism. Since I had my Kundalini awakend I've felt a much stronger urge and desire to deepen my spirtual practices. But I'm confused about the direction I should take. Can I do both (Kundalini and Vajrayana)? Are there any potential dangers? Do I even need a Guru? My Kundalini wasn't awakened directly by one, though I consider my friend to be highly advanced spiritually.
Sorry about the length and somewhat rambling nature of this. I would truly appreciate any advice.
Steve |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 16 2008 : 03:26:08 AM
|
Hi Steve and welcome to the forum.
I think you have come to the right place, as:
1. AYP is non-sectarian and anyone of any religion can benefit from the lessons, and
2. AYP will help to keep balance with and safely progress the kundalini awakening you have had.
Head to the top right hand side of any page here and click on "Main Lessons" as this is where it all begins. You have not found this site by accident...divine love brought you here I'm sure. Best of luck.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Nov 16 2008 05:12:36 AM |
 |
|
|
Suryakant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2008 : 08:23:15 AM
|
Hi Steve,
I am not a practitioner of AYP, but everybody has always made me feel welcome here - you can feel at home here as well. 
I have a very strong affinity for Tibetan Buddhism, probably extending beyond this present physical gestalt. I do not practice Vajrayana, but I have received a number of Vajrayana empowerments as blessings and have always found them to be deeply inspiring experiences. Also, I had dreams in childhood that match (as I discovered later on in my adult life) some of what is described in the Bardo Thodol.
My spiritual path is both kundalini oriented and Guru oriented, with roots in Hindu tradition. I received the kundalini-awakening initiation called shaktipat more than 18 years ago, and it was the most significant spiritual experience of my life - so far, at least!
Given my experiential background as someone who has undergone an intense kundalini awakening and entered into an emotionally intense relationship with a Guru who left the physical plane 4 years after I received shaktipat (but who is still actively working with me from the subtle level), combined with my deep affinity for Tibetan Buddhism, I can assure you that having an awakened kundalini will put more Vajra in your yana.
If you are feeling an irresistible pull towards entering into a relationship with a Guru, and are seeking guidance in relation to that, I would be happy to share more details of my own experiences in that regard. Please let me know.
Namaste,
Suryakant (John)
|
|
|
|
stevenbhow
Japan
352 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2008 : 08:48:59 AM
|
Thanks Carson and Suryakant. I appreciate your kindness very much. Kundalini is a wonderfully intense experience. If I have any questions, and I'm sure I will, I'm glad to know that you are all here to help.
Namaste,
Steve |
|
|
|
contemplative
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2008 : 4:00:55 PM
|
The Vajrayana Buddhist tradition has its own system of kundalni-yoga called candalini-yoga (or candali yoga) and is supported by a practice of physical yoga (similar to Hatha-yoga) called nadi-vayu-yantra.
These are at least as comprehensive and sophisticated as the Hindu variants and make use of most all of the same asanas, bandhas, mudras and use similar pranayamas.
The presentation of the nadis, chakras, pranic energies, and bindus is at least as well developed as any system of yoga I’ve seen, possibly more so.
Warm Regards,
Ryan
|
|
|
|
stevenbhow
Japan
352 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2008 : 9:38:32 PM
|
| Thanks Ryan. I will look into candali yoga. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2008 : 11:30:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by stevenbhow
Hello All,
I just found this site. It seems like there is a lot of good info about Kundalini and Yoga here. I had a few questions.
I'm a long time lay follower of Tibetan Buddhism. About a year ago I received Deeksha from a friend of mine, also a long time Buddhist, but much more devout than me. As a result of the Deeksha I had a Kundalini awakening. At the time I actually didn't know what had happened. I talked to my friend about it, but he basically said, "Yeah, sometimes during Deeksha you experience stuff like that." Since he was a Zen Buddhist I thought he was taking the Zen Buddhist's view of ignoring the fireworks, so to speak, getting on with the meditation.
Later, I talked with another friend who'd spent years studying with several Gurus in India, and had had his Kundalini awakened,about my experience and he was the one that told me I'd had a Kundalini awakening.
Since then I've been doing a lot of research on my own. I also bought a Kundalini meditation DVD and have had some amazing experiences with it. Corny, I know, but it seems to work for me.
But in my heart I feel I'm still a Buddhist. If anything, my Kundalini awakening his given my more drive and enthusiasm to continue studying Tibetan Buddhism.
My questions then concern duel practices (Buddhism and Yoga) and the need for a guru.
I've been reading a lot of Vajrayana Buddhism lately. Alot of what I've read seems very similiar to the Yoga/Hindu Guru Kundalini practices. My friend that spent time in India advised me to find a Guru (Yoga/Hindu) and begin studying with him or her. I'm considering it and have done some research, but I'm still much more inclined towards Buddhism. Since I had my Kundalini awakend I've felt a much stronger urge and desire to deepen my spirtual practices. But I'm confused about the direction I should take. Can I do both (Kundalini and Vajrayana)? Are there any potential dangers? Do I even need a Guru? My Kundalini wasn't awakened directly by one, though I consider my friend to be highly advanced spiritually.
Sorry about the length and somewhat rambling nature of this. I would truly appreciate any advice.
Steve
The Buddha speaks of mindfulness. He never mentions kundalini. The only thing resembling pranayama he discusses is be mindful of the long breath as long breath and the short breath as short breath. That means understand the reasons behind why the slow and long breath are slow and long, and why the short breath are fast and short. Knowing these causes allows you to control them, and thereby control your body and mind states. Yoga and Dharma are distinct paths; they are not compatible. |
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2008 : 09:45:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
Yoga and Dharma are distinct paths; they are not compatible.
Hi TMS,
Welcome to the forum.
You know, there are many paths that lead us home. Dismissing others because one works for you is not the best way to go. There have been enlightened souls form many religions and paths.. so dismissing other paths because it does not look like your path is not going to help. It almost sounds like spiritual racism. 
You have a lot of wonderful things to add to us... but coming to a new place.. and telling us we will not get anywhere if we don't see things your way, is not going to get anyone to listen to you... and that way we are missing on all the wonderful things you are adding to this site.
The best way to get people to listen to you is, put out what has worked for you.. watch your tone.. because if you use the tone.. "ultimate practice.. rest everything else is a waste of time.. STOP all other practices".. you will turn people off immediately.. and they will miss out on the beauty of what you are trying to say. So make your posts with more compassion and acceptance and openness.
All you can do is put the info out there.. with the intention to help... knowing it will touch those who need it and are ready for it. If you are trying to convert the entire forum to your way.. it wont work.. and even the ones who may have benefited from it will get turned off. So instead of saying Yogani is wrong and has no idea what he is talking about.. or arguing with a bunch of members of this forum.. make peace.. and we will all get along just fine.
Be more open and accepting if you are going to be a teacher.. esp. in this path.. You gently guide people.. not hammer them home.. you cant.. it just does not work that way. Like you said.. it's all about love.. and love does not try to control.. it allows.. allow your teachings to flow into this world.. don't impose them. Allow yourself to be open.. open and ready to learn.. there is no end to that.. it is a two way street.. allow flow outwards and inwards..
Drop the constriction of "this is it.. all else is a waste of time"... there is NO waste of time.. everything happens as it should.. as it will.. if you let go and let flow.. it will be a much easier to teach and learn. Ask any teacher.. ask Yogani.. in order to teach.. you need to be open and allowing and not go into the mode of I know it all.. be ready to learn from others and then others will learn from you.. it works better when it is a two way street.
PS: When I say be open and ready to learn.. I don't just mean be open to learning the techniques taught here.. you may or may not need them.. but there is more to learn from an online community than just techniques.. the way you communicate, the way you listen, the problems that come up along the path.. how to help people.. etc. etc. etc. |
Edited by - Shanti on Nov 29 2008 10:56:51 AM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2008 : 8:46:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shanti
quote:
Originally posted by themysticseeker
Yoga and Dharma are distinct paths; they are not compatible.
Hi TMS,
Welcome to the forum.
You know, there are many paths that lead us home. Dismissing others because one works for you is not the best way to go. There have been enlightened souls form many religions and paths.. so dismissing other paths because it does not look like your path is not going to help. It almost sounds like spiritual racism.
You have a lot of wonderful things to add to us... but coming to a new place.. and telling us we will not get anywhere if we don't see things your way, is not going to get anyone to listen to you... and that way we are missing on all the wonderful things you are adding to this site.
The best way to get people to listen to you is, put out what has worked for you.. watch your tone.. because if you use the tone.. "ultimate practice.. rest everything else is a waste of time.. STOP all other practices".. you will turn people off immediately.. and they will miss out on the beauty of what you are trying to say. So make your posts with more compassion and acceptance and openness.
All you can do is put the info out there.. with the intention to help... knowing it will touch those who need it and are ready for it. If you are trying to convert the entire forum to your way.. it wont work.. and even the ones who may have benefited from it will get turned off. So instead of saying Yogani is wrong and has no idea what he is talking about.. or arguing with a bunch of members of this forum.. make peace.. and we will all get along just fine.
Be more open and accepting if you are going to be a teacher.. esp. in this path.. You gently guide people.. not hammer them home.. you cant.. it just does not work that way. Like you said.. it's all about love.. and love does not try to control.. it allows.. allow your teachings to flow into this world.. don't impose them. Allow yourself to be open.. open and ready to learn.. there is no end to that.. it is a two way street.. allow flow outwards and inwards..
Drop the constriction of "this is it.. all else is a waste of time"... there is NO waste of time.. everything happens as it should.. as it will.. if you let go and let flow.. it will be a much easier to teach and learn. Ask any teacher.. ask Yogani.. in order to teach.. you need to be open and allowing and not go into the mode of I know it all.. be ready to learn from others and then others will learn from you.. it works better when it is a two way street.
PS: When I say be open and ready to learn.. I don't just mean be open to learning the techniques taught here.. you may or may not need them.. but there is more to learn from an online community than just techniques.. the way you communicate, the way you listen, the problems that come up along the path.. how to help people.. etc. etc. etc.
Point taken. I say kindly: Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and the Pali Canon diverge from one another in a significant way. The Buddha explicitly refuted the existence of a higher Self or a Lord God. The Buddha states that enlightenment requires seeing the emptiness of things based on interdependent origination of opposites. Whereas, Patanjali explicitly states that meditation and dedication to the Lord God is the yogis highest attainment. They have many similarities too, but this particular divergence leads to irreconcilable inconsistency. The Buddha believed the Brahma thinks he is eternal, because he was created first, but Brahma is deluded because of that false belief. So clearly Buddha does believe that Brahma is real, but not ultimately real, because he is subject to dependence upon the constituents of nature and mind. Patanjali, writing 500 years later, rejected the Buddha's doctrine of dependent origination and emptiness. This only matters if you are interested in why the Buddha rejected a God as a hinderence to enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2008 : 9:10:56 PM
|
This is interesting TMS, are you saying neither system is better, but they are different?
And OK, I'll take the bait; why did Buddha reject God? I assume you mean the concept of God, as separate from oneself. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2008 : 11:28:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
This is interesting TMS, are you saying neither system is better, but they are different?
And OK, I'll take the bait; why did Buddha reject God? I assume you mean the concept of God, as separate from oneself.
Well Etherfish, aren't you swimming after bait? In short, the Buddha rejected God, not because he did not believe in Brahma. His discovery was that a first person was created. The Buddha's claim (affirmed by some meditators) is that all mind emanates from some basic elements, and the basic elements emanate from one white light, and the white light emanates from a seed, a dense gathering of intention. The seed arises from emptiness.
The Buddha gathered that Brahma's ego causes him to believe he is first and last. But he is not, nor is he immortal. Brahma is the creator creating worlds. But he is the created creator.
The Buddha realized that Brahma's life is dependent on emptiness, the seed, the five lights, dimensionality, and the constituents of mind (memory, cognition, imagination and perception). Thusly, Brahma is an emanation, and relatively speaking, is illusory, a light show, as are we.
The Buddha surmised that Brahma's incredibly long life and great power has deceived him into thinking that he is immortal and all powerful. Brahma's attachment to ego, is a barrier to his enlightenment.
The Buddha placed incredible value on our Earth. Perfect balance between the material worlds and the spiritual worlds exists here (there are worlds less and more material than this one, the Buddha says). Therefore, this is our unique opportunity to realize the truth.
All things arise interdependently, beginning with dualities becoming aggregate compound structures like we are. We are like a crystalline emanation of lights.
Enlightenment is realizing our true potentiality, and our potentiality is realized when we open our hearts to the source and power of God and the Cosmos, emptiness, voidness, Tao, or as I like to call it "The Great Mystery of mysteries."
HA!
TMS |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Nov 30 2008 11:36:06 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2008 : 12:03:07 PM
|
Thanks TMS that's interesting, and I hadn't heard it before. Actually it sounds compatible with AYP methods. Our practices are a fast way of opening our hearts to the source, and there are many threads in this forum mentioning the source as some sort of empty void.
You mention "opening our hearts to. . .the power of God" so are you saying that the source of all worldly things we know is Brahma, but he is not God, as God is the void from which Brahma came? If so, is Brahma still alive today? Are his creations independent of his life? Does he crave worship?
And this brings up a lot of other questions such as, if brahma is a created creator, then was he the only one, and why? If he was not an intentionally created creator, but sprung forth from the void because of a concentration of intention by God, then there could be more like him.
Also it hardly matters if he is immortal or not if his life is much longer than ours.
it sounds like the crux of Buddhas argument is simply that God is not the direct creator of illusion.
just a side note; being affirmed by meditators doesn't validate anything for me, as reality is like the layers of an onion, and the combination of people putting the unspeakable into words, and the reader's perception being from an unknown level of the onion, makes validation impossible. You can find validation of almost any concept in any religion, that would be true under some world view.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2008 : 12:16:29 PM
|
Hi TMS
quote:
Point taken. I say kindly: Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and the Pali Canon diverge from one another in a significant way. The Buddha explicitly refuted the existence of a higher Self or a Lord God. The Buddha states that enlightenment requires seeing the emptiness of things based on interdependent origination of opposites. Whereas, Patanjali explicitly states that meditation and dedication to the Lord God is the yogis highest attainment. They have many similarities too, but this particular divergence leads to irreconcilable inconsistency. The Buddha believed the Brahma thinks he is eternal, because he was created first, but Brahma is deluded because of that false belief. So clearly Buddha does believe that Brahma is real, but not ultimately real, because he is subject to dependence upon the constituents of nature and mind. Patanjali, writing 500 years later, rejected the Buddha's doctrine of dependent origination and emptiness. This only matters if you are interested in why the Buddha rejected a God as a hinderence to enlightenment.
I think you are way off the mark here... creating separation and differences where in fact there are none.
Both the Buddha and Patanjali taught meditation as the best method for realization.
When Patanjali talked about dedication to God he was talking about dedication to Brahman, not Brahma. They are very different. One is immortal, the other a mortal. One has a form, the other is formless. One exists in time, the other is timeless. One is a creation of the universe, the other is the creator. Patanjali used the word Purusha to describe Brahman as opposed to Prakriti: the created universe.
When the Buddha taught his monks to practice in order to realize their true nature, it was in order to realize their true nature as Brahman (Purusha). He did not use the word, but he did use all the characteristics (nimittas) of Brahman: Unmanifest, uncreated, selfless, eternal etc.
In other words the Buddha also taught about dedication to God (Brahman), just in different words.
I think you should read up on this, before setting yoga up against Buddhism as if they are somehow opposed to each other.
Christi |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2008 : 2:11:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi TMS
quote:
Point taken. I say kindly: Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and the Pali Canon diverge from one another in a significant way. The Buddha explicitly refuted the existence of a higher Self or a Lord God. The Buddha states that enlightenment requires seeing the emptiness of things based on interdependent origination of opposites. Whereas, Patanjali explicitly states that meditation and dedication to the Lord God is the yogis highest attainment. They have many similarities too, but this particular divergence leads to irreconcilable inconsistency. The Buddha believed the Brahma thinks he is eternal, because he was created first, but Brahma is deluded because of that false belief. So clearly Buddha does believe that Brahma is real, but not ultimately real, because he is subject to dependence upon the constituents of nature and mind. Patanjali, writing 500 years later, rejected the Buddha's doctrine of dependent origination and emptiness. This only matters if you are interested in why the Buddha rejected a God as a hinderence to enlightenment.
I think you are way off the mark here... creating separation and differences where in fact there are none.
Both the Buddha and Patanjali taught meditation as the best method for realization.
When Patanjali talked about dedication to God he was talking about dedication to Brahman, not Brahma. They are very different. One is immortal, the other a mortal. One has a form, the other is formless. One exists in time, the other is timeless. One is a creation of the universe, the other is the creator. Patanjali used the word Purusha to describe Brahman as opposed to Prakriti: the created universe.
When the Buddha taught his monks to practice in order to realize their true nature, it was in order to realize their true nature as Brahman (Purusha). He did not use the word, but he did use all the characteristics (nimittas) of Brahman: Unmanifest, uncreated, selfless, eternal etc.
In other words the Buddha also taught about dedication to God (Brahman), just in different words.
I think you should read up on this, before setting yoga up against Buddhism as if they are somehow opposed to each other.
Christi
Hi Christi,
I said, "refutes a higher Self or a Lord God." The Buddha refutes a Brahman. The subtle distinction arrives where Brahman is experienced as consciousness. The Buddha's view is that emptiness is beyond consciousness and that consciousness clinging is a hindrance. the Buddha asserts that consciousness is enmeshed in the interdependent web of existence. Brahman, Ishvara and purusha is a manifestation, consciousness. Consciousness depends on mind, intellect and Self. Therefore, the Buddha refuted both a Lord God Brahma and unitary Self or Brahman as aggregate and thereby unreal.
The Buddha rejected also purusha and atma; he asserts selflessness and absence of soul. Look at book 1, verse 17 of the Yoga Sutras, "Samprajnata samadhi is accomplished by reasoning, reflecting, rejoicing and pure I-am-ness." <-- This statement is antithetical to the Buddha's core teaching that nirvana is the relief from "me-ness," "my-ness" and "I-ness," even in the pure "I-am-ness" sense of a purusha or a Brahman.
Besides, Patanjali refers consistently to Ishvara not Brahman and Ishvara is God. I don't find the word "Brahman" in the Yoga Sutras. And I'm looking at the Sanskrit. The Buddha sought to dispel the contradiction yogis make that consciousness is one, yet consciousness consists of mind, intellect and self. Even AUM is A, U and M, aggregate.
Why didn't the Buddha use the word "Brahman"? If it was just a semantic difference, then why didn't he just stick with the old language? Why come up with dependent origination, selflessness, soullessness and emptiness? If it weren't for this distinction the Buddha would be Sri Gotama Swami Brahmananada.
This is why the Buddha claimed to be the teacher even of the Gods; while Patanjali instructs that Ishvara is the teacher of the oldest teachers.
Maybe you should read up on this before you assert that the Buddha wasn't trying to radically reform yoga, Christi.
We can't always force a square peg into a round hole, and I like round holes as much as the next guy. Then again, what do I know, I'm way off the mark. Both Dharma and Yoga adhere to truth, nature and intelligence exist for our emancipation.
HA!
Respect and blessings,
TMS |
Edited by - themysticseeker on Nov 30 2008 3:47:42 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2008 : 2:24:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
This is interesting TMS, are you saying neither system is better, but they are different?
And OK, I'll take the bait; why did Buddha reject God? I assume you mean the concept of God, as separate from oneself.
PS. One is not better than the other. They are different. I am not a Buddhist. I depart from traditional Buddhism, because I don't even think "emptiness" or "voidness" sums it up. These concepts are tools for the meditator, objects of meditation. So is Brahman.
I think of it all as a Great Mystery, whom, even the non-yogi, she who is devoid of all yogas, can access by faith to make any wish come true.
I see a non-separation between the transcendent and the immanent. The immanent as transcendent is beyond experience, which is temporary and cannot be apprehended fully. The mind is limited. Thus, peaceful mind is the highest attainment. The transcendent mystery is beyond the mind. We access it all the time; it is the source of healing and miracles. It grants our wishes. You attained the miracle of human birth on this paradise planet despite not being a fully enlightened being at the time of conception. Thus, a peaceful mind and a pure heart will wish well to establish lasting peace in one's self and among society. This is just my view, and I'm not much, but I see the focus of yoga as the union of the heart with the great mystery in the here and now.
The import of all of this is to surrender fully; then, surrender to God, or if that is not enough surrender to the mystery to which God surrenders.
I have nothing else to say about this.
May we all wish well,
Ahh...
Respect and blessings,
Surrender
|
Edited by - themysticseeker on Nov 30 2008 3:30:33 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 02:05:29 AM
|
quote:
Hi Christi,
I said, "refutes a higher Self or a Lord God." The Buddha refutes a Brahman. The subtle distinction arrives where Brahman is experienced as consciousness. The Buddha's view is that emptiness is beyond consciousness and that consciousness clinging is a hindrance. the Buddha asserts that consciousness is enmeshed in the interdependent web of existence. Brahman, Ishvara and purusha is a manifestation, consciousness. Consciousness depends on mind, intellect and Self. Therefore, the Buddha refuted both a Lord God Brahma and unitary Self or Brahman as aggregate and thereby unreal.
The Buddha rejected also purusha and atma; he asserts selflessness and absence of soul. Look at book 1, verse 17 of the Yoga Sutras, "Samprajnata samadhi is accomplished by reasoning, reflecting, rejoicing and pure I-am-ness." <-- This statement is antithetical to the Buddha's core teaching that nirvana is the relief from "me-ness," "my-ness" and "I-ness," even in the pure "I-am-ness" sense of a purusha or a Brahman.
Besides, Patanjali refers consistently to Ishvara not Brahman and Ishvara is God. I don't find the word "Brahman" in the Yoga Sutras. And I'm looking at the Sanskrit. The Buddha sought to dispel the contradiction yogis make that consciousness is one, yet consciousness consists of mind, intellect and self. Even AUM is A, U and M, aggregate.
Why didn't the Buddha use the word "Brahman"? If it was just a semantic difference, then why didn't he just stick with the old language? Why come up with dependent origination, selflessness, soullessness and emptiness? If it weren't for this distinction the Buddha would be Sri Gotama Swami Brahmananada.
This is why the Buddha claimed to be the teacher even of the Gods; while Patanjali instructs that Ishvara is the teacher of the oldest teachers.
Maybe you should read up on this before you assert that the Buddha wasn't trying to radically reform yoga, Christi.
We can't always force a square peg into a round hole, and I like round holes as much as the next guy. Then again, what do I know, I'm way off the mark. Both Dharma and Yoga adhere to truth, nature and intelligence exist for our emancipation.
HA!
Hi TMS
I still think you are way off the mark, and have simply failed to understand both the Buddha’s teachings and that of Patanjali.
In Yoga, Brahman is beyond consciousness. Consciousness arises with sense perception. Brahman is beyond both sense perception, and consciousness. Brahman, Ishwara, the Parapurusha, are beyond all manifestation, and thus are non-aggregate.
When the Buddha talked about the absence of a separate self (anata), he was talking about the ahankara, the ego. After the Buddha’s enlightenment, he was still there, no? And able to tell a lot of other people how to follow him. ;)
Ishwara is Brahman. Ishwara means the Lord and refers to Brahman. So why did the Buddha not use the word Brahman? I believe he thought that so many people misunderstood its actual meaning that it was better to avoid the use of the word. A bit like the word "enlightenment" today.
I don't think the Buddha was trying to radically reform yoga. I think he was trying to correct some misunderstandings in yoga that were around at the time in his locality.
I still think you would benefit from reading up on all this before trying to assert that Buddhism and Yoga are in some ways opposed to each other.
And you could do that before writing Mahayana Buddhist practices off as being a waste of time. :)
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Dec 01 2008 03:01:55 AM |
|
|
|
stevenbhow
Japan
352 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 03:14:56 AM
|
| Wow, this little thread really took on a life of it's own. Very interesting stuff. Obviously I'm no expert on Buddhism or Yoga, but after reading Play of Consciousness and then The Secret of the Vajrayana right after that they seem to have a lot in common at least where Gurus are concerned. I personally have no problem learning from both. |
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 03:46:23 AM
|
| second that Christy, + no spiritual practice is a waste of time... |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 12:08:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Hi Christi,
I said, "refutes a higher Self or a Lord God." The Buddha refutes a Brahman. The subtle distinction arrives where Brahman is experienced as consciousness. The Buddha's view is that emptiness is beyond consciousness and that consciousness clinging is a hindrance. the Buddha asserts that consciousness is enmeshed in the interdependent web of existence. Brahman, Ishvara and purusha is a manifestation, consciousness. Consciousness depends on mind, intellect and Self. Therefore, the Buddha refuted both a Lord God Brahma and unitary Self or Brahman as aggregate and thereby unreal.
The Buddha rejected also purusha and atma; he asserts selflessness and absence of soul. Look at book 1, verse 17 of the Yoga Sutras, "Samprajnata samadhi is accomplished by reasoning, reflecting, rejoicing and pure I-am-ness." <-- This statement is antithetical to the Buddha's core teaching that nirvana is the relief from "me-ness," "my-ness" and "I-ness," even in the pure "I-am-ness" sense of a purusha or a Brahman.
Besides, Patanjali refers consistently to Ishvara not Brahman and Ishvara is God. I don't find the word "Brahman" in the Yoga Sutras. And I'm looking at the Sanskrit. The Buddha sought to dispel the contradiction yogis make that consciousness is one, yet consciousness consists of mind, intellect and self. Even AUM is A, U and M, aggregate.
Why didn't the Buddha use the word "Brahman"? If it was just a semantic difference, then why didn't he just stick with the old language? Why come up with dependent origination, selflessness, soullessness and emptiness? If it weren't for this distinction the Buddha would be Sri Gotama Swami Brahmananada.
This is why the Buddha claimed to be the teacher even of the Gods; while Patanjali instructs that Ishvara is the teacher of the oldest teachers.
Maybe you should read up on this before you assert that the Buddha wasn't trying to radically reform yoga, Christi.
We can't always force a square peg into a round hole, and I like round holes as much as the next guy. Then again, what do I know, I'm way off the mark. Both Dharma and Yoga adhere to truth, nature and intelligence exist for our emancipation.
HA!
Hi TMS
I still think you are way off the mark, and have simply failed to understand both the Buddha’s teachings and that of Patanjali.
In Yoga, Brahman is beyond consciousness. Consciousness arises with sense perception. Brahman is beyond both sense perception, and consciousness. Brahman, Ishwara, the Parapurusha, are beyond all manifestation, and thus are non-aggregate.
When the Buddha talked about the absence of a separate self (anata), he was talking about the ahankara, the ego. After the Buddha’s enlightenment, he was still there, no? And able to tell a lot of other people how to follow him. ;)
Ishwara is Brahman. Ishwara means the Lord and refers to Brahman. So why did the Buddha not use the word Brahman? I believe he thought that so many people misunderstood its actual meaning that it was better to avoid the use of the word. A bit like the word "enlightenment" today.
I don't think the Buddha was trying to radically reform yoga. I think he was trying to correct some misunderstandings in yoga that were around at the time in his locality.
I still think you would benefit from reading up on all this before trying to assert that Buddhism and Yoga are in some ways opposed to each other.
And you could do that before writing Mahayana Buddhist practices off as being a waste of time. :)
Christi
I've read it all many times, dear. It's all I do. Before you dispense with your judgment and sentence that I am ignorant, try to consider that my interpretation of it is different. Also try to consider that my point of view has some weight. Also try to accept a little bit that I bring these findings, not so that I can be correct, but because my insights are relevant and important to crossing the divide into perfect peace. I'm here for the meditators who would benefit from advanced experience. If I'm not helping, I'll take my toys and go play by myself.
Why didn't Patanjali say Brahman? Ishvara is God as Creator. This discussion is about Patanjali's Yoga who was in the Samkya school. What you are describing, the unmanifest Brahman is Advaita Vedanta. Have you even read the Yoga Sutras? I think I probably have about twelve translations in my possession. All commentators on the Yoga Sutras translate Isvara as God or Lord. I also know from experience with Indian culture, that Ishvara is God and purusha is soul. Patanjali could have used Brahman but didn't. His practice included bhakti, something Buddha rejected. Brahman is consciousness. You can say unmanifest consciousness if you want, but I would say that "unmanifest consciousness" is an oxymoron. Consciousness is a manifestation of mind, intellect and Self. Patanjali lays this out in the first stanzas of the Yoga Sutras.
Yoga is a big topic with many schools. I can easily say that the Buddha's school of Anatta Yoga was an innovation over Samkya and Advaita Vedanta. The Buddha was a reformer and the most well regarded teacher of meditation. His innovation over the old regime is very hard to understand in debate format. It has to be expressed as the meditator enters samadhi. It is not God as the object of meditation that allows you to cling to nothing whatsoever and thereby enter Nirvana, but not clinging to an object of meditation.
The Buddha introduced these concepts of emptiness and dependent origination to allow the meditator to let go. Otherwise, we warned the meditator would hit a dead end in meditation, become frustrated and suffer, usually resorting to base ceremony and blind devotion.
It is a common error of my who are new to the path to see every path as ONE, ignoring the distinctions points and counter points. It is a nice gesture, though; we should all get along. Unfortunately, a serious student of these matters must address the reality of the difference and the reality of the similarities.
One could say, "Gee Surrender, You are clinging to selflessness." Maybe, I'm harping on this point, and that is ending now, but, in fact, if there is no self, then I can't cling to it, and you can't cling to something that isn't there. I certainly can't cling to an absence of something. The Buddha said that realizing emptiness in meditation is for the "wise."
Whatever philosophy you want to spew, no matter what the spew says, if it is in your mind in meditation, "I am that," you are in compound land and have hit a dead end. If you are in no-mind samadhi bliss you are equally at a dead end, because without mind you cannot realize and integrate this wisdom into your life. The final deconstruction of "I am that" results in descontruction of "I" and "that." "I" is an aggregate, and so is "that"/consciousness. This avenue is beyond the scope of the philosophical department of metaphysics. This is beyond the scope of debate and discussion.
I can easily say there is no selflessness either; it won't matter. What matters is the Buddha's only exhortation and admonition to "cling to no thing whatsoever." Consciousness is a thing, Christi, put the puppy down so that it can go play and you can achieve real stillness.
HA!
Respect and blessings
TMS |
|
|
|
Steve
277 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 3:15:05 PM
|
Hi TMS,
quote:
I'm here for the meditators who would benefit from advanced experience. If I'm not helping, I'll take my toys and go play by myself.
I encourage you to keep posting. Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and insights in this forum. It is appreciated.
Love and Light,
Steve |
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 01:40:52 AM
|
no TMS please stay, you are most welcomed around here.
but take it easy on the guys, oh and it would be nice if one day you can share with us a post about your experience with suffism.
kindest regards,
Ananda |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 05:38:39 AM
|
Hi TMS
quote:
I've read it all many times, dear. It's all I do. Before you dispense with your judgment and sentence that I am ignorant,
I don't consider you to be ignorant at all. But I do think your understanding of this subject would be helped by a better understanding of the terms involved. That is all.
quote:
Have you even read the Yoga Sutras? I think I probably have about twelve translations in my possession. All commentators on the Yoga Sutras translate Isvara as God or Lord.
Whether you read 12 translations, or one original, you still need to understand the sanskrit terms used in order to understand the meanings. Yes, Ishwara means Lord, or God. God is the same as Brahman, The Father, Allah, Paramatma or whatever other name you wish to use.
Patanjali understood advaita, as advaita is part of yoga. Advaita is the non-dual aspect of the universe which is present everywhere. It is known in samadhi, which is the 8th limb of his yoga.
quote:
I also know from experience with Indian culture, that Ishvara is God and purusha is soul.
Every individual soul, purusha, is a light of the supreme soul, parapurusha, which is Ishwara, the Lord.
quote:
Yoga is a big topic with many schools. I can easily say that the Buddha's school of Anatta Yoga was an innovation over Samkya and Advaita Vedanta. The Buddha was a reformer and the most well regarded teacher of meditation. His innovation over the old regime is very hard to understand in debate format. It has to be expressed as the meditator enters samadhi.
I am not saying that the Buddha did not bring many great things to Yoga, he did. But to say that he was diametrically opposed to what came before him, or after him, is simply not true. He was expressing the same truths in another way, just as most spiritual teachers do.
quote:
His practice included bhakti, something Buddha rejected.
Don't be too quick to make statements like this. Buddhism involves a great deal of bhakti, even when the Buddha was alive.
quote:
It is a common error of my who are new to the path to see every path as ONE, ignoring the distinctions points and counter points. It is a nice gesture, though; we should all get along. Unfortunately, a serious student of these matters must address the reality of the difference and the reality of the similarities.
One of the roles of the mind is to create differences when in fact there are none. Ultimately, there are none at all.
Christi |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 09:59:48 AM
|
TMS said:
Yoga and Dharma are distinct paths; they are not compatible.
TMS, sometimes your best option is to say, 'Oh, excuse me, I was wrong, oops, never mind.'
If you want to be a spiritual teacher, you may feel the temptation to present yourself as someone who makes no mistakes. But if you follow that path, you are more likely to become a cultic leader.
You can actually be both a cultic leader and a spiritual teacher. But if you do, your spiritual teaching will be terribly marred by your bad example.
In what came to us from India in the twentieth-century, this bad example is so general that most people just think this is the way things are and should be with spiritual teaching. Spiritual teaching and cultic leadership are bound up in their minds. But in the end, these cultic leadership situations are a circus, obscuring yoga, usually with a poser of very limited understanding as the ring-master. You, on the other hand, already have understanding. Why waste it?
You can see this. As you say yourself:
Stop it.
Stop taking yourself so seriously.
Stop taking us so seriously as if you cannot admit you have been a fool on front of us, as we have all been in our time.
Better to be a clown who takes spiritual teaching seriously, than a poser who takes himself to seriously.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2008 11:48:25 AM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 12:14:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
TMS said:
Yoga and Dharma are distinct paths; they are not compatible.
TMS, sometimes your best option is to say, 'Oh, excuse me, I was wrong, oops, never mind.'
If you want to be a spiritual teacher, you may feel the temptation to present yourself as someone who makes no mistakes. But if you follow that path, you are more likely to become a cultic leader.
You can actually be both a cultic leader and a spiritual teacher. But if you do, your spiritual teaching will be terribly marred by your bad example.
In what came to us from India in the twentieth-century, this bad example is so general that most people just think this is the way things are and should be with spiritual teaching. Spiritual teaching and cultic leadership are bound up in their minds. But in the end, these cultic leadership situations are a circus, obscuring yoga, usually with a poser of very limited understanding as the ring-master. You, on the other hand, already have understanding. Why waste it?
You can see this. As you say yourself:
Stop it.
Stop taking yourself so seriously.
Stop taking us so seriously as if you cannot admit you have been a fool on front of us, as we have all been in our time.
Better to be a clown who takes spiritual teaching seriously, than a poser who takes himself to seriously.
Hi David, I don't take myself seriously. I like to mix things up. We are having a debate. And Christi and I disagree about something. I'm definitely the clown. I don't come from India, I was born in Oregon though. Christi, likes to use what's known as ad hominem attacks rather than addressing specific points. Eh, Christi?
Love,
TMS |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 12:29:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi TMS
quote:
I've read it all many times, dear. It's all I do. Before you dispense with your judgment and sentence that I am ignorant,
I don't consider you to be ignorant at all. But I do think your understanding of this subject would be helped by a better understanding of the terms involved. That is all.
quote:
Have you even read the Yoga Sutras? I think I probably have about twelve translations in my possession. All commentators on the Yoga Sutras translate Isvara as God or Lord.
Whether you read 12 translations, or one original, you still need to understand the sanskrit terms used in order to understand the meanings. Yes, Ishwara means Lord, or God. God is the same as Brahman, The Father, Allah, Paramatma or whatever other name you wish to use.
Patanjali understood advaita, as advaita is part of yoga. Advaita is the non-dual aspect of the universe which is present everywhere. It is known in samadhi, which is the 8th limb of his yoga.
quote:
I also know from experience with Indian culture, that Ishvara is God and purusha is soul.
Every individual soul, purusha, is a light of the supreme soul, parapurusha, which is Ishwara, the Lord.
quote:
Yoga is a big topic with many schools. I can easily say that the Buddha's school of Anatta Yoga was an innovation over Samkya and Advaita Vedanta. The Buddha was a reformer and the most well regarded teacher of meditation. His innovation over the old regime is very hard to understand in debate format. It has to be expressed as the meditator enters samadhi.
I am not saying that the Buddha did not bring many great things to Yoga, he did. But to say that he was diametrically opposed to what came before him, or after him, is simply not true. He was expressing the same truths in another way, just as most spiritual teachers do.
quote:
His practice included bhakti, something Buddha rejected.
Don't be too quick to make statements like this. Buddhism involves a great deal of bhakti, even when the Buddha was alive.
quote:
It is a common error of my who are new to the path to see every path as ONE, ignoring the distinctions points and counter points. It is a nice gesture, though; we should all get along. Unfortunately, a serious student of these matters must address the reality of the difference and the reality of the similarities.
One of the roles of the mind is to create differences when in fact there are none. Ultimately, there are none at all.
Christi
Hi Christi, I think we have peace. Notwithstanding there is no difference between Buddhism and Astanga Yoga, that they are indeed the same path, please explain what is distinct, if any? You are aware that Patanjali wrote 500 years after the Buddha began teaching? Although, it appears that Patanjali transcribed a practice that pre-dates the Buddha, because it appears very much in line with Vedanta and the Upanishads. Whereas, the Buddha introduced new terms like anatta and shunyata.
My understanding was that the Buddha introduced a new method of meditation, supplemented by indoctrinating inductees with the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Precepts. I thought he wanted to align students to the correct view initially, with selflessness as the seed, that way he could introduce selflessness at the beginning and have it flower fully as nirvana.
I never said the two practices are diametrically opposed. I said they diverge, like a branch of a tree. My foolish and humble opinion, is that the Buddha's insight into selflessness is that it has practical application in meditation. Clinging to nothing whatsoever simplifies the understanding of the meditation process. It's elegant simplicity allows the relaxation and release process to remain continuous from beginning to end.
This is just my view.
Always the fool's fool,
TMS |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 12:31:36 PM
|
TMS said:
I like to mix things up.
Do you mean, 'to mix things up' in the sense of to provoke a fight, or just merely to create confusion? Or both? 
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2008 12:32:29 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
A Buddhist with an awakend Kundalini
