Lucky7Strikes

.

I can't sleep. Don't feel the need to eat. Everything is shrouded in clarity in perpetual motion. I don't feel time. I don't feel distance. Everything feels like a hallucinating dream. It feels like my waking state and dream state is merging.

Intention/will is of Yang manifestation. Seeing it's lack of true autonomy facilitates its inner Yin, thereby perfecting it. Observation is of Yin manifestation. Seeing its relentless movement facilitates its inner Yang, thereby perfecting it. Union of both is union of luminosity and emptiness, stillness and movement. .

Yes, reverse breathing done natural facilitates Kan and Li union. Normal breathing integrates that union. . I'm getting it.

I want to apologize to Dwai, for being mean and condescending. And I feel a bit bitter towards Vaj for imposing sectarian views so strongly when it wasn't necessary . And I want to thank GIH for challenging our understandings. And I hope Xabir doesn't get too technical. I want to thank others who have been patient with Buddhist theory nonsense. The discrepancies we have made often in the long threads between Self and no-self, I realize only pertain to techniques and methods of teaching, and are actually hindrances to practice if one clings to them as solid descriptions of our daily experience (note: I didn't say "truth" or any of that mumble jumble). The more directly I experience, I see better where these concepts fit in. I am going to lay back on so much Buddhism, which I think offers wonderful teachings, and acknowledge and rest in the mystery of things. Be a bit more Taoist. .

Bump

I think the differences between the interpretation of Advaita/Hindu practice that takes the Self to be a real and the Buddhist Anatta teachings doesn't need to be so pronounced. I think the teaching of this difference is applicable in varying degrees where a practitioner may be clinging to a certain experience too much. For example, a person might take the no-self teaching wrongly and fall into nihilistic tendencies ("oh, I'll let the universe decide") and a person might take the Self teaching to another extreme of, uh how shall I word it, "static clinging" to bliss states. I think this is why spiritual teaching cannot be codified. I didn't mean to sound mean against you in the original post in this thread. Thank you for all the knowledge and experience you share here. .

I never said anything about Buddhism being different, or of an ultimate heaven, or jobs being finished... I like what you wrote above though.

Well if you know it, then you have perceived it. If you don't, well you haven't perceived it either in thought or in experience. So why worry about that?

Are you separate from your thinking? Can you know the world without perceiving?

Hey! You can play that game forever !

It's really on a personal basis, and I don't think we should subject such claims so strictly to specific religions. Codified teachings don't do the teachers justice.

Actually from what I remember from reading the article, Norquist understands only part of the equation where he realizes there is no fixated self in an experience, but that the "universe" itself is not fixated and ungraspable. As in, he still takes outer appearances to have a reality to them beyond one's mind, as in "other"/"universe". Integration of both understandings does not produce a state where one is "disinterested" in thing or in an "Orwellian" mode, but a blissful appreciation for life and a natural compassion for all things. I'm not saying this conceptually, I am beginning to experience this daily.

Yes, I agree.

Whoa. No need to impose meaning on my post. I didn't mean to sound insulting to Buddhists for spewing nonsense. That was not the intention of the post. That part was directed at Vaj. But you are right. There is conceptual understanding, which is good but it doesn't get to the core of practice and direct realization. The conceptual understanding of emptiness is so that it may give one the capacity to see reality directly by loosening some logical nonsense we cling to. The attempt to "understand" emptiness is where one is plastering on concepts into a pure unfiltered view of reality. The conceptual understanding is a ground work and most of the way it is presented in Buddhism is through refutation of cognitive grasping. BUT the problem can arise when one thinks concept can "lead" to insight, which is not so correct in my view. It rather gives us the assurance, a confidence, to practice and try to see reality as is. The danger here is also viewing things as "Truth is beyond concepts." It's not that this statement is wrong, it's that upon hearing, one's mind can easily revert to "ok, I need to find the Truth, or understand the truth, or interpret the truth." This leads to an intellectual path, which is not what direct insight is about.

I think the school is what you make out of it, not really a place that hands you things on a plate. Just my opinion as someone who also considered transferring. Oh and I thought these reviews were helpful. http://www.studentsreview.com/CO/Naropa_University.html Wish you the best!

Being is not separate from things. It is not a "cause." It only appears so to the conceptual mind that takes appearances of the mind to be actual things of themselves. It's not that all things are impermanent. It's that appearances are empty and only imputed to be "things." One has to penetrate the wrong perspective of "thingness" of things. One shouldn't think in concepts of permanence or impermanence, both are rejected in the Madhyamika. This is conceptual and splits experience into poles, hence the terms "ungraspable" and "emptiness" are used because of direct experience. It's not two natures of existence. One has to do with appearance of things and the other the nature of things. Your understandings are good, but too conceptual. It needs to be applied to directly.

Yup, this is a valid argument. .

You have yet to reply to any of the contents of my posts, but only to the fact that they disagree with what you say. So I keep writing questions and challenges. (Don't read this!) It is based on concepts. Just saying it's not based on concepts does not make it not based on concepts. Then what else is your video based on? Feelings? Intuition? Have you gave consideration to the what "concepts" means? This is what the mind's worm hole looks like. Non-concepts become concepts, non-truths become truths, the words cease to have meaning. The act of conceptualization is much deeper than just labeling it a mere non concept.

I put him down in detail on other threads. . You're welcome to check them out. .

I did see his videos. It's catchphrase on catchphrase, list of word plays, a logic play and not based on experience. If it was based on experience he would have penetrated into his own role within his theories, but he never did that, just spat out theories based on assumptions. It wasn't clear and detailed, because the words he used like "truth", "objective", "subjective," "ultimate," well might as well just say "everything" are tossed around as if they weren't abstract, but have true meaning to them, so we have a worm hole mind game. Those words are there to communicate the ineffable, and I don't mind using them at all, but as long as their context as abstract notions are understood. The logic of that video is basically this: 1) Everyone thinks different things, sees different things because they have varying perspectives 2) But that's ok because everyone has different perspectives anyway 3) So the perspective that everyone has a different perspective is where we end This is good, but lacks what we might call a transmutive factor, it's basically a view held by the mind thinking "this is the right view" and has no seriousness to it but the mind going "yes I am right, what I think is right" It comes from word play, not direct insight, like drawing a perfectly measured geometric figure that has absolutely no relevance to life. As long as it makes "sense," it's good, but a lot of things make sense without any meaning to it, like "things are different, so their difference is the same, but the sameness is the difference, so same and different are one thing" So his views are ok, but that's precisely what concerns me, because the mind can fixate itself on stuff like "concept of no-concepts," justify itself through theories of "oneness," as he does in the video, and conclude with "we are all enlightened." People on the board, including me, have said the same things in the past, and I have fallen into similar mind traps many many times. But no true understanding has taken place, because the implications of these theories haven't hit home personally as in what it truly means to our very experience right now. T The context is also different, and you know this because he has mentioned "everyone is enlightened" (Dogen travelled throughout China to find answer to this paradox because it bothered him so much, but it doesn't seem to bother TheJourney..) as a pass to chase past habits of pleasure, the mind justifies the body's habits this way, it's false wisdom. This is why practitioners mix insight and concentrative meditation, it's precisely what splits mere philosophy and meditation. What alarms me is his close mindedness, and because his theories due have some merit to them in the field of "making sense" with the mystical jargon here, I'm afraid there will be a lot of pat-on-the-back affirmations instead of someone throwing him a challenge. The one liners I was mentioning was referring to many of his posts here on the board. Like, "love is all you need." I didn't see any raw mystical experience of social conditioning (at least not any better than , oh people believe different things). I wrote a reply this long to show that yes, I did indeed consider what he said, and passed careful judgment and not just a "oh god, what does this kid know" type of thing. I won't bash TheJourney any more, I've said all that I had to say. .

I agree that people shouldn't force ideologies, but that doesn't mean ideologies are bad to our species. Ideologies like "boyfriend girlfriend" let your brother sleep in peace? :lol: Forcing religion like Buddhism on others can get pretty ridiculous, telling a happy man he is actually "suffering" and so needs to meditate is like force feeding a mana already full. Most Buddhists have "suffering" as the seed to practice, so they practice to contemplate a problem, which in a way, as you say, can be mere ideology...so I guess I kind of agree in a way.

Have an open mind. That's all I'm saying. If you only like hearing people applaud you, well, you should read more Chinese history (at least that's where I learned it from). Mkay? .

Awareness can mean awareness of awareness, which leads to non-thought states. Awareness Sunya seems to be talking about is thought's awareness of thoughts, feeling's awareness of feeling, tasting's awareness of tasting, etc., oh wait, yea, it just dawned up in me that its referred to as mindfulness.