Machig and the chod

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> I am interested in Chod. Is there any particular book you

recommend?

 

 

Machik's Complete Explanation, Clarifying the Meaning of Chod - Sarah

Harding

 

Machig Labdron and the Foundations of Chod - Jerome Edou

 

> Are you familiar with Tsultrim Allione?

 

Not really-was she not using a visualization based on the chod in a

modern western context?

>

> BTW you may be interested in in the God/punishment thread;

Not that much

 

I posted what I've read of Machig Lapdron's teachings.

> Her name has come up before on this message board, too. I'd be

> interested to hear your thoughts after reading it.

 

It is fitting that her Name has come up before in this board because

the lineage she founded was what one might call a buddhist "shakta"

lineage.

Arya Prajnaparamita was conceived as the mother of all wisdom and all

the buddhas. Her emanation Vajra Dakini (or Vajravarahi) the wrathful

subduer of the demons, she herself the incarnation of that dakini.

This teaching was revealed to her by Tara.

 

In the words of Tara herself adressing Machig:

 

The one known as the primordial Mother Yum Chenmo(Arya

Prajnaparamita) is the ultimate nature of all phenomena, emptiness,

the essence of reality, free from the two veils. She is the pure

expanse of emptiness, the knowledge of the non-self. She is the

mother which gives birth to all the Buddhas of the three times.

 

I insert your comment from the other thread here. You wrote:

 

< Machig Lapdron advised that the union sought in passionate sexuality

is a union that can take place within oneself (without a partner).

To me, that is the same assertion made by the deity Ardhanareshari,

and it is the promise of yoga. If such union can occur within, much

more of partnered sex would contain love and sexuality together,

which is what I consider to be genuine respect, not just for sex,

but for life, for love, and for humanity. (This might help with

the "control of lust" issue, too.)

 

There are practices which use the picture of male female union to

symbolise other concept. In the Vajrayana generally and the Chod

belongs to that school, though it contains also some Ritual practices

of the tibetan shamanic Religion,is nonetheless based on the indian

teachings of the Mahasiddhas and should not differ so much.

 

The Sexual Union can be used to symbolise a lot of different things

not neccesarily connected to sexuality or Sexual feelings.

In the most secret and esoteric interpretation it is used to describe

the movement and mixing of the 2 different body energies inherited

from the Father and Mother (Kurukulla(or Shyama) and Varahi in the

Srividya)the red and the white Substance and the resultant mixed

Substance (the Bindu) symbolised by the Sexual union. A similiar

interpretation can be found also for example insome of the Sri Vidya

traditions.

 

In this tradition there is a school that has been mentionend in this

board also, the Samayacara who believes that enlightenment can take

place by internalizing the erotic elements, not unlike what you

mentionend. The idea you mentionen is not uncommon to other schools

also.

But as far as I know this ideas is uncommon to the Vajrakula. On the

contrary even the monks in the orthodox tradition who have vowed to

remain celibate, know that because of their vows they cannot attain

complete enlightment in this lifetime.It is commonly accepted in all

Vajrayana Schools that there are only two possible moments to attain

complete enlightment either during death or during sex.

The Celibate Monks have to prepare for death and wait and the other

schools can attain during their lifetime by using a consort.

The explanation for this is that the outward spread bodily energies

(called pranashakti in the Kaula tradition) will not completly enter

the middle Channel without being stirred by the sexual contact or

will naturally leave the extremities and enter the Sushumnna during

death. This process happens naturally during death but is provoked by

certain meditation during sex.

This is a highly technical process and has nothing whatsoever to do

with abstract symbolism.

I have learned the chod notfrm that particular lineage Machig founded

but inside the context of another School but i doubt that in the

Shije - the School founded by Machig deviates from these teaching to

such an extent.

The visualized sexual union common in the Vajranayana meditations

usually only prepares the aspirant for the actual union.

(sorry to disappoint you)....

 

By the way i am not a buddhist at present.

[Guest guest]

Re the below:

 

Yes, it's that "need" or requirement for the external that, set next

to the external rules made by religion and society that make sex

bad, and/or that say how men and women should behave (as essentially

halves of a whole) that I think is actually a mistaken notion. Even

the term "consort" creates a power differential between the two

participants. In the hathayogapradipika, there is a description of a

mudra that is essentially male-female coitus, and it also only

speaks to the male participant, relegating the female to consort

status. That is not true union.

 

Yes, Tsultrim Allione has used Machig Lapdron in western contexts. I

just ordered a book that includes some of her work. I will look for

the ones you recommended, too.

 

Thanks for sharing your information.

 

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

>

>

> The visualized sexual union common in the Vajranayana meditations

> usually only prepares the aspirant for the actual union.

> (sorry to disappoint you)....

>

> By the way i am not a buddhist at present.

[Guest guest]

This link might be interesting. You can download a mp3 of a short

chod ritual:

http://www.lamawangdu.org/SacredSound.html

 

I dont know if Sex is bad or good and frankly i dont want to know. Consort is

neither male nor female nor derogatory. The male is a consort of the female and

vice versa.

 

In this yoga of sexual union which is described which is universally

practiced (buddha and "Hindu") desire is used as a means to achieve

enlightment. It is not about how man and woman behave in a society or

a Marriage or as business partners. Concepts such as true love, true

union, respect etc are of no interest to the Mahasiddhas because they

usually lived and live outside of the normal human society, they

frequent the cementarys and do not sip drinks watching tv with their

lovers and partners chatting about respect and union. They do not

want to start a happy family and society, they want to leave this

place called earth to be never reborn again.

 

They have other values. Desire and sex to them was and is a means to

an end, not the end itself. If that fits our ideas and lifestyle doesnt change

their views.

 

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> Re the below:

>

> Yes, it's that "need" or requirement for the external that, set

next

> to the external rules made by religion and society that make sex

> bad, and/or that say how men and women should behave (as

essentially

> halves of a whole) that I think is actually a mistaken notion. Even

> the term "consort" creates a power differential between the two

> participants. In the hathayogapradipika, there is a description of

a

> mudra that is essentially male-female coitus, and it also only

> speaks to the male participant, relegating the female to consort

> status. That is not true union.

[Guest guest]

I disagree that "consort" doesn't have a negative connotation

precisely because it makes the other a means to an end. That is a

misalignment, and living outside of society and avoiding television

have obviously not corrected it yet, despite thousands of years of

invention and practice. It is foolish for cave-dwellers to believe

that they have overcome the world simply by withdrawing from it,

disdaining it, and creating what amount to other rituals that come

also from it, from being embodied, and dealing with what that is.

IMHO

 

 

 

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

>

> This link might be interesting. You can download a mp3 of a short

> chod ritual:

> http://www.lamawangdu.org/SacredSound.html

>

> I dont know if Sex is bad or good and frankly i dont want to know.

Consort is neither male nor female nor derogatory. The male is a

consort of the female and vice versa.

>

> In this yoga of sexual union which is described which is

universally

> practiced (buddha and "Hindu") desire is used as a means to

achieve

> enlightment. It is not about how man and woman behave in a society

or

> a Marriage or as business partners. Concepts such as true love,

true

> union, respect etc are of no interest to the Mahasiddhas because

they

> usually lived and live outside of the normal human society, they

> frequent the cementarys and do not sip drinks watching tv with

their

> lovers and partners chatting about respect and union. They do not

> want to start a happy family and society, they want to leave this

> place called earth to be never reborn again.

>

> They have other values. Desire and sex to them was and is a means

to

> an end, not the end itself. If that fits our ideas and lifestyle

doesnt change their views.

>

> , "Mary Ann"

> <buttercookie61> wrote:

> >

> > Re the below:

> >

> > Yes, it's that "need" or requirement for the external that, set

> next

> > to the external rules made by religion and society that make sex

> > bad, and/or that say how men and women should behave (as

> essentially

> > halves of a whole) that I think is actually a mistaken notion.

Even

> > the term "consort" creates a power differential between the two

> > participants. In the hathayogapradipika, there is a description

of

> a

> > mudra that is essentially male-female coitus, and it also only

> > speaks to the male participant, relegating the female to consort

> > status. That is not true union.

[Guest guest]

The higher aims of the Indian Religion have always been to end the cycle of

Birth and Death. The Rishis of old and later the Siddhas were all "misaligned

Cavedwellers" but these were the people that embody the spiritual ideal of the

ancient indian culture. They do not care if you think they were fools and their

ideas and rituals nonsense.

 

Of course the western influnece nowadays is destroying the old traditions fast

at least in the urban regions but there will always remain some cavedwellers who

will uphold the ancient traditions rituals and meditations.

 

Nobodys is forced to live like a rishi or Yogi but there wisdom and

way of life should be respected.

 

 

 

 

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> I disagree that "consort" doesn't have a negative connotation

> precisely because it makes the other a means to an end. That is a

> misalignment, and living outside of society and avoiding television

> have obviously not corrected it yet, despite thousands of years of

> invention and practice. It is foolish for cave-dwellers to believe

> that they have overcome the world simply by withdrawing from it,

> disdaining it, and creating what amount to other rituals that come

> also from it, from being embodied, and dealing with what that is.

> IMHO

[Guest guest]

What deserves respect receives it and knows it. Arrogance is

arrogance, though, and I was responding to your arrogance. You can't

hide behind the achievements of others simply by spouting the words

of others. Repeating others does not mean you have achieved what

they have achieved. Many DO simply trade one set of rituals for

another, and from your comments, that is what it sounded like you

are doing. Stating this is no disrespect to any who are doing

otherwise.

 

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

>

> The higher aims of the Indian Religion have always been to end the

cycle of Birth and Death. The Rishis of old and later the Siddhas

were all "misaligned Cavedwellers" but these were the people that

embody the spiritual ideal of the ancient indian culture. They do

not care if you think they were fools and their ideas and rituals

nonsense.

>

> Of course the western influnece nowadays is destroying the old

traditions fast at least in the urban regions but there will always

remain some cavedwellers who will uphold the ancient traditions

rituals and meditations.

>

> Nobodys is forced to live like a rishi or Yogi but there wisdom

and

> way of life should be respected.

>

>

>

>

> , "Mary Ann"

> <buttercookie61> wrote:

> >

> > I disagree that "consort" doesn't have a negative connotation

> > precisely because it makes the other a means to an end. That is

a

> > misalignment, and living outside of society and avoiding

television

> > have obviously not corrected it yet, despite thousands of years

of

> > invention and practice. It is foolish for cave-dwellers to

believe

> > that they have overcome the world simply by withdrawing from it,

> > disdaining it, and creating what amount to other rituals that

come

> > also from it, from being embodied, and dealing with what that

is.

> > IMHO

[Guest guest]

You write that you are not a current buddhist yet you quote that celibate practioners can not realize enlightenment. How can enlightened mind, that which is beyond any conditioned existence be limted to sex or death?

These are dangerous statements, statements set with in a language of duality and conditioned existence.