Birch

"It's exactly the same as Tao. Once names and descriptions are removed, you are left with original mind. This is what all the sages and enlightened masters from all traditions have been pointing to from time immemorial." Huzzah! At last

Hey Creation! Good to read you! Not sure that a poster calling another poster names reflects on anyone apart from the poster. I don't think (and I would hope not) that students should be neat reflections of their teachers, although maybe I'm not very old school. I also remember getting super arrogant when I'd just started KAP, it wore off though Although maybe some would beg to differ

"anything done incorrectly is going to cause discomfort and pain." While I agree with this in general, I think in certain types of meditation, pain is just plain going to come up. Discomfort is going to come up. What one does with that pain and discomfort has a great deal of importance. From experience, the "hardcore" techniques require balancing with stuff like mindfulness, compassion practice and virtuous conduct (otherwise known respectively to me as checking out what's going on, being kind to yourself and others and keeping it together when the shit hits the fan.) I think it's funny to read things about the "western" persona vs the "eastern" persona in practice when so much of path is fundamentally about discovering what exactly that persona is. I'm almost sure that one might be just as much of a hindrance to self-discovery via meditative practice as another. Anyway, back to topic. The neat thing about practices is that they work in and of themselves. Doing them "wrong" still has effects that can be observed vs not doing anything. If I only got one thing out of practices it would be this realisation. What each type of practice actually does is another question and I agree it is of interest to discuss what each one is "good" for irrespective of value judgments to begin with, and I realise that this suggestion is not an easy one to put into practice.

"we relegate the unfinished business to our offsprings, our spouses, our business partners, and whatever or whomever else we cant leave behind." This being wholly dependent on such people's capacity (or desire) to shoulder the burdens that such others have seen fit to transmit. What if one doesn't want to take on other people's burdens? I see Taoist(and some Buddhist practices) as addressing this quite well. Another idea I had about this is as follows: Imagine you are born with someone hitting you over the head with a stick. At some point you take the stick from the other person and continue to hit yourself, without realising it. At some point you realise you can just put the stick down. Ending Samsara happens the moment you understand what it is and what your role in it is. This then makes it possible to transform it by transforming yourself (which is whatever it is).

This is a GOOD thread. As someone who went it alone and "screwed it up" (although in hindsight I actually didn't ) the first time round before working a few things out with some good help from KAP, I can attest to the need to address both the dangers and the precautions suggested above. Oh, I also remember I screwed my knees up with home yoga practice and had to go find an instructor and a chiropractor. I'm coming to see meditation and energy work to be as powerful (if not more so) than drugs. Those tantra guys don't talk about "fierce paths" for nothing. "Hardlight" and Mr Hardcore Dan Ingram, anyone, anyone?

What did Taoists and Buddhists do when stuff like this happened before? I thought the idea about the ego-tripping gun and blanket wearers was quite good.

"Are you going to swap and barter with the electric company? Or pay the mortgage/rent each and every month?" If the cash collapses entirely then my mortage won't be worth anything anyway. It's just a building (quite a nice one, but still. I think I might be naive but not so much that I expect all of this to happen at once at some later point;-) Which is why I'm trying to figure out now what would be a good and more practical skill (or set) to learn that would be useful to other people. Preventive medicine might be a good field to get into. Qi-gong? Social skills so you don't end up going to war over petty details with people who could help me get out of the mess I put myself in?

Yeah, then sometimes we get lazy and use proxies for that and it turns out badly for lots of people (and very well for others).

The money might collapse but the economy won't. Another reason to get good at something more practical than bean counting;-) People will just start swapping goods and services again. I'm trying to figure out what I could possibly do that would be of practical use in such circumstances.

"If it's true, then it should be true, right?" Tautology anyone ;-)? You're right in that the present application of some "science" is restricted to applications that enable large amounts of profit to flow to some - unfortunately also at the expense of others. Why would the people enjoying such profit (we might also be personally enjoying some of it, I know I am) want to "find out" anything that would result in a diminishing of their sources of income (power?) "What do you mean digging up this yellow stuff is pointless?" So what to do? I'm trying to figure that out as I write this.

Here's a stab at something. It's what I've kind of understood so far. Before Tao? Can't go there for now. Tao brought itself into awareness (that would be through us and all the other 10 thousand things) Through observation and play (and other less pleasant things), we can know it. Through observation and play (and other less pleasant things), Tao gets to know itself (I should say "herself" but it isn't really coloured in that way) It's not a "creation" as in a "shacka-boom-shacka" creation, more of an ongoing. Of course, I can't talk about the true Tao But I can try And just as an OT, the 7-day worldly creation story reminds me of, yep, chakras.

I was thinking about this. It could be cool (useful maybe?) to include some exercises that help achieve such realisations in experience, without them being necessarily Buddhist. It might help get rid of the preachy stuff my new friend Mr Harris doesn't enjoy so much. But then I got to wondering, what if ALL of these realisations are just an effect of the exercises themselves and not actually anything to do with realisation? Like that thread on liver flushes? An example I'm looking at is if I want to raise my heartbeat. I can do it by running (or other physical exercise) or I can do it via tummo, or I can watch a scary movie, or drink coffee or fall in love (or run an extra special secret smile;-)) The effect is there, but does it retro-determine the cause? My cognition does that for me (albeit badly sometimes, but isn't this where discernment comes in?) As I flip back and forth from various perspectives in meditative experiences and all day long, not this, not this, I realise I am hiding behind whatever is looking for myself. I witness my anger, I turn around to look for the witness, miss it, turn back again, rah rah rah. I'm still there, albeit a very diluted refined version of whatever I am (and I'm not quite sure in that state.)Right, so I'm whatever that is. And I don't know what it is. Nothing Buddhist about it.

Of course he's allowed to say he's enlightened. Nothing wrong with that. Also very cool that this place actually does something for people. If we've got a fast track, it might just be here via the confrontations and discussions and insights we share. Lotus in the mud and all that stuff;-) Best wishes Lifeforce!

"who or what did it?" - good question ;-) - can there be certainty that because the body was involved that is was "you" - no, but I tend to take responsability for what she does;-) or could this be another example of some function of the mund/brain claiming responsibility? - yup how can one be sure? - c.f. Fight Club ;-) Although I think it's just easier to say that "yes, it's all me, even the weirdo body thing" so the body can be involved in doing although the you that you normally consider to be you but really can't be truely you because the you are not concious of it LOL - well, again we're always on about this "me" and this "consciousnesses" stuff. If a consciouness is required for there to be a sense of "me" (which apparently boils down to the actual "me" that we spend time debating on TTB's then it would seem to be pretty reductionist IMO that was too fun! LOL - yeh, bringing the body back (would that be a resurrection;-)) to such discussions which IMO tend to get very "disembodied" seems like something fun. I asked my femur if she agreed and so here we are I am not going to be serious about this right now.... - I would hope not, if any of this stuff has a goal, it's happiness, right?

Nice Mark, thanks! I was considering this and so I was considering that what is often taken to be oneself yes, doesn't do anything, yet it sees/feels/whatever is done and mistakes (as in "takes" when it shouldn't) ownership (or rejection) of whatever the done thing is. But what is done is still done by oneself, just perhaps not seen/felt/whatever by the part of oneself that one takes for being oneself. Sound weird? Well, I'm thinking not so much. Ever been so drunk/stoned/in love/high/sorrowful/enraged that you did something "out of character" or something you could later not recall? Was it still "you"? Remember "Fight Club"?

I have a dumb idea. How about you don't concern yourself with the number of minutes? This being said, I'd say IME qi-gong (like an MCO) got me faster to still mind. Which just means to me that there are no more verbalized thoughts going around in it. So what's left? I'm sure some might say that MCO is still a thought though. Which would be very interesting indeed. A non-verbal thought, is it still a thought? It's a diverting technique as far as I can tell. Maybe for some people it would be more accessible to start with than a focusing technique? I'm sure more technical and experienced TTB's could explain the different techniques and what and how and all that.

Wow. Sent.

Thanks Forest. Nice transition to an almost OT. Maybe I should move it to Trunk's thread. The "unconscious." I've been looking at this one and I'm starting to think it's really not as simple as is sometimes made out. Nor is it necessarily Freudian;-) I haven't come across any really great books (apart from Freud and Jung) on it either, so would enjoy some recommendations. If cognition is often (always?) selective (now based on what exactly would be a good discussion) then I was wondering if what we might commonly term "unconscious" is really just a sort of a reverse understanding of the things left out by our cognition? Or is it something else? And as conditioning conditions our cognition (and we desire to hang on to it whatever it is because otherwise we can feel very uncertain and we don't enjoy that feeling necessarily) then perhaps many more things get left out? Add language and people who are bigger and ostensibly "smarter" than you and who tell you what you're "really" seeing and we've got a winner. Except our awareness is still acting all the time, so we end up with a sort of a "knowing" despite the conditioning. And this in itself can cause more suffering, not because there is no us, but because we know what's going on but we don't (want to?) believe it (ok, maybe that's too strong?) So we make stuff up about it. Often about other people, often about ourselves. Or we let other people make stuff up about it, or ourselves. Before I lose the OP topic. Dreaming would seem to me to be one of those activities that might help us shed more light on what's going on in the waking state. Why we remember some dreams and not others. To actually be conscious inside a dream, knowing it is one is another feat I've only read about. And it seemed that this actually caused problems with the person's waking life because of the techniques they used to drop into the lucid dream state. Maybe this is where the line about the butterfly dreaming he was someone else comes in? Was it a joke about crazy meditation students;-) ?

Thanks Drew! It will probably take me some time to understand this in writing.

There is an idea that everyone dreams, several times a night but that not everyone remembers them. I have read that dreaming is effectively a sorting out of whatever you have encountered (both in the world and inside yourself). I wonder if it is "cleaning" or not. Some of my current dreams are filled with being taught things. Especially cultivation type things. I have no idea who is doing the teaching. So I'll wake up and go "aha"! It doesn't mean I get better at anything I don't think;-)

Heh, thanks Joe! That was even less clear than Drew's explanation

Hi Trunk! I thought this one was very good. I found myself agreeing with it and going "yep, had that experience , had that understanding" So perhaps I should just stop ;-) Thanks for posting!

Or will gangstas finally realise the ridicule of bling ? What's with all the gold mining still? If most "money" is electronic anyway?? But then I'm an asshat. Lino, have we read the same book? It's a rather scholarly work about K (and makes a good case for not pushing such development prematurely.)It mentions the various "developmental" stages of humans on the Earth relative to realisation. So yes, it would seem that many people are already not THAT in the dark. It also blows open some K and Dharma translations relative to Christianity - see also this week's New Yorker magazine. But the flying?? Unless you're talking symbolically. In which case everyone can "fly" - just don't try stepping out of a window and flapping your wings When I was a kid and had just seen Mary Poppins I tried to lift off on a regular basis using an umbrella in high winds. Or we'd just jump off walls with one. It worked a bit.

I am one already It doesn't have to be physically inside your skull. It can stay outside and it can be called "Internet"

"post-death chi energy." The which?? I "get" the pre-heaven stuff (ish) I "get" the post-heaven stuff (ish) So what's post-death? Seriously, if my parents still talked to me like that, I would move out.