goldisheavy

In my experience there is some of what you say. Once I came to a very well respected and somewhat "famous" Dzogchen Guru, but the guy didn't even bother to say hi to me. If I got a guest in my house, certainly I would at least say "hi". Then when the session started, the guy didn't bother to talk about anything, like explain what is emptiness, what is rigpa, and so forth. Instead, everyone just sat down and proceeded to chant something that in my opinion they don't even understand. The only good things I have to say about that kind of rote practice are the smell of incense and the musical voices that some of those folks had. But the ignorance there was waist deep, and in large part it was so because there was nothing done to question and to explore anything. In Guru's defense, he was sick. However some of his close students were there, and there is no reason why they couldn't chime in to save their Guru the trouble when the Guru was sick. Either way I ascribe this failure to the Guru. When I shared this negative experience with buddhists, needless to say I have received zero support and understanding. Instead everyone gave me every excuse possible how the problem must have been with me. There is simply no possibility in these people's minds that something can be wrong with someone they admire. That's just not a possibility they are open to. I use the word "Guru" conventionally and not as a reflection of how I feel in my heart. I went there being open to a deep relationship, but came away unsatisfied. However! That's not how it always is! I've also heard plenty of people explain very, very, very well what "emptiness" means in Buddhism. In particular, if you go to e-sangha forum, you'll be certain to get good explanations from many people there. That's not to say I recommend e-sangha forum, but for the purpose of clarifying one's understanding of emptiness it can serve as a good tool in my opinion. A great many texts are available that explain the concept of Buddhist "emptiness" very well. Luckily many even previously secret texts have been published. Perhaps grudgingly so, but published nonetheless. So the explanations are available, even if many Lamas/Gurus are lazy and/or stupid. I've heard from a friend who speaks Chinese and spends a lot of time with various Chinese wu-shu teachers that there is a general perception that the Westerners are idiots who are hopeless. It's a stereotype, and perhaps it's false, but I do think it's out there, circulating among at least some people, and it probably explains why many of these folks don't want to bother explaining anything to the stupid Westerners who can't get it anyway. But again, I am also equally certain that there are many great teachers who don't suffer from this attitude in the slightest.

I believe that people deserve some basic level of respect just for being a person. However, a doctrine does not deserve an automatic respect in a sense of offering it your protection, like you would to a person for just being a person. You can say that a doctrine deserves some minimal respect in a sense that before you disagree with one, you should read it. So then, if it promotes mutilation and various other sundry atrocities, you don't have to respect it. You also don't have to respect it if it pretends to be a doctrine about the entry into the life of spirit, and yet gives no practical insight into how this might be accomplished, but instead saddles you with a lot of rote and "just because I said so" non-explanations. I am also content. The fact is that you need people like me. I am the background against which you can make your work succeed. The criticism I offer is, I believe, eminently reasonable. I was even criticized by lostmonk for being too reasonable, which is a first one for me. Now, you need people of reason to say things that people are not yet emotionally ready to accept, so that these people will feel deep in their guts that something, maybe a very tiny something about what they are doing is, wait for it...wait for it...WRONG. Think about it. If the person thinks that 100% of what they are doing is right, would the person need to attend a interfaith meeting and consult with others, possibly leading one to change one's mind? Even if the person cannot consciously admit to being even slightly wrong, subconsciously they must allow for this possibility in order to attend a meeting like the one you are talking about. And I play a role in this. Further. When you get so many people in the room, generally their ability to admit mistakes vanishes to near zero. Unless among them there is an amazingly exceptional person, no one in their "right" mind is going to stand in front of hundreds of heathens and admit to any wrongdoing. But meet the person one on one, and this can change. One on one, using reason to highlight the problems with finding truth to be in the doctrine as opposed to in one's heart or in one's life, is a productive approach. Then, in the privacy of one on one discussion, many more people would be more open, especially if they can trust that you won't go around later on blabbing about their "weak faith". So among friends and close associates, my approach works best. At some point you really do want people to pay attention to reason, because whether they know this or not, they rely on reason. And if you rely on something, you better know how it works. If you rely on bones and muscles, you better know some basic anatomy. And intuitively we know it, but sometimes we don't know enough. That's why runners who heel stomp often develop ankle, knee and hip problems, because as intuitive as running is, there are wrong ways to do it that lead to injuries. I would say that in your particular position, you did the right thing. You want to continue these people to dialogue with each other and to overcome their distaste for each other at least to some extent. On the other hand, you need someone like me to make arguments for why what you do is meaningful. Face it, logically, if some doctrine is 100% correct and is the truth, it makes sense to be a zealot (I explained why in a previous post), and it doesn't make sense to go somewhere to talk with heathens about how to get along. That possibility is just not open. And finally there is a huge difference between pointing your finger and shouting in an accusatory tone, "You are wrong!" and leaving it at that, and calmly, in a kind tone of voice, explaining the reasons behind the wrongness. Patiently giving the reasons for the person's wrongness shows respect for that person. If you don't respect the person, instead of patiently and kindly explaining the many reasons why they are wrong, you just cut off their head and be done with it.

Of course. Have you seen anything written that was not an opinion? Ever? I will even go further. I will say that what people call "direct experience" is also an opinion. And the opinion that everything is an opinion, is also an opinion. What's important is not whose opinion it is, but whether or not you like the opinion. To determine whether or not you like it, you must assess its consequences. If you want to receive a simple step-by-step guideline you can follow, of course what I say will sounds confusing, because I am saying that the step-by-step guides are an entry into hell over the long term, because step-by-step guidelines cultivate bad mind habits of mindless following. Now, if you truly understand the nature of my critique, it would be the height of ignorance to imply that the problem with what I am saying is that my "doctrine" is self-purifying. It's not a problem, but a feature of it. My doctrine purifies other doctrines and then purifies itself as well. Nothing is left in the end but the infinite possibility, but this means you have to become responsible. You have to become a leader of your own life, and not a follower. The lord of your senses and not a victim. Reason is awesome, isn't it? Reason trumps all indeed. Why? Because those that rely on reason are swayed by reason, and those that do not rely on reason are swayed by various phenomena in an arbitrary fashion. Should there be a lack of arbitrariness, that is the presence of reason. Furthermore, anything that has to do with identities and relations is governed by reason. If you can name it, and if you can point at it, it is governed by reason.

You are so clever, ain't ya? Ha, ha, ha... http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=12...92&set_id=1

In my opinion -- no way. If anything, it has the power to confirm tribalism and make it seem true. The only way to free oneself from it, is to question it. And you cannot question tribalism by performing a technique that evolved from a tribal mindset. At best, the technique is unrelated to the tribalism, and cannot do anything to shine a different light on it. At worst, the technique was essential to sustain tribalism, and practicing it will entrench one further. However, having said that, I'd like to repeat that the potential harm of various "tibal" techniques is not something I take as a given. For example, breathing is something even the most open minded person does. That's not something that's related to tribalism in my view. I'm just taking an obvious extreme to show that not everything tribal people did had to do with tribalism. So it's quite possible that many techniques they practiced have salvageable truth in them, especially when looked at through fresh eyes. As for my tribalism... I grew up believing that everything was made of matter. So physicalist materialism is my dogma. Lucky for me, I have questioned it, and moved beyond it. Unfortunately most people still believe in physicalist materialism and if you question it, people often (but not always!) think you are insane. It's like questioning the existence of a Sun. Physicalism seems so "obvious" to many people, that they cannot enter into a sincerely questioning attitude with regard to it.

If you mean the Buddhist definition, then being empty means not having a stable identity, or having a dynamic, ever shifting identity which for some intents and purposes can work as an identity, but for other intents and purposes works as a non-identity. It's meaningless. You can't practice something that you already are. Again, I assume you mean the Buddhist meaning. Instead you can realize that empty is what everything is. How? You ask yourself something like this in contemplation, "What does it mean to say that 'this is a table'?" In what sense is a table itself? Investigate this deeply, and look for the basis of it being called a table or even just being a table. Eventually you might discover that there is indeed no basis for any identity, and that its meaning is something you feel intuitively, but cannot establish in any way. Or not. But it is said that if you realize that identity cannot be established, you have realized emptiness. But that's not something you can practice though. It's similar to realizing that you live on a planet Earth. You cannot practice it. You were born here and have always lived here on Earth, conventionally speaking. You cannot practice the fact that you live on Earth. In the same way you cannot practice emptiness.

I agree with ralis 100%. Stigweard is using one cop out after another and dodging the issues. Yea, we are all humans, group hugs, group hugs... Smile! Think positive. Ok, time for more group hugs! Love, love, love... Don't be a hater, group hugs. Smile! Alas, peace will never come from this head in the sand attitude. Fact is we do make judgments and to pretend otherwise is dangerous and unproductive. We consider murder to be wrong. Killing someone for breaking "a religious law" that we consider to be ridiculous in our culture is murder to us. There is no need to whitewash it with "we are all humans". Yes we are, so what? As long as people follow doctrines thinking the truth is in the doctrine, rather than in the heart, the following will happen. If the truth is in the doctrine, then it's logical to follow the doctrine more closely. It's then logical that the closer you follow the doctrine the closer you are to truth. Then it's completely logical to become obsessed with following the doctrine in every minute detail and to get very very serious about it. Once the person takes this attitude, they become a fanatic who interprets everything literally, and the thing is...that person is being LOGICAL and REASONABLE...if the assumption that the truth is in the doctrine is correct. Except the truth is never in the doctrine. The doctrines are a mix of utter bullshit with some helpful pointers. This is necessarily so, but to explain why is beyond this post. Investigate the Buddhist concept of "emptiness" to see why. In other words, from the point of view of looking for something that's completely true without any possibility of deceit, the doctrines are...wait for it...wait for it... WRONG. Yes, they are wrong. Not the person is wrong, not the hands, not the feet, not the liver, not the heart is wrong, but the doctrine really IS wrong. If you lower your expectation toward the doctrine, and if you think "I don't want anything more than a few good hints" then maybe the doctrine is not wrong. But is this how people approach doctrines in practice the world over? No. Not at all. Not yet. Not today. It takes great courage to stop suckling on a doctrine's tit as the source of all truth. Consider this: if nobody is willing to point out flaws, inconsistencies, and unnecessary savagery of many doctrines, why would anyone want to stop following them as closely as possible, and as literally as possible, if the person's current belief is that the doctrine is the absolute and total truth? Why? Of course they wouldn't! Ah, but if you point the finger and say "you are wrong" you are a bad guy, right? Do you really want to work toward a society where it's unacceptable to say that someone or something is wrong? Is that similar to tolerance at all? It's one thing to love all people, but it's another thing to give aid and succor to harmful doctrines.

It's impossible. Some doctrines are in conflict and there is no way to create harmony between them. You can create harmony between PEOPLE, but never between faiths (which is to say doctrines). The doctrines we inherit historically will always and forever be in conflict. Islam is in conflict with many religions, especially those which are not "of the book", but really with all of them to some extent. Christianity is often in conflict, doctrinally, with others. Evangelism is something many people really dislike. That's a conflict right there. But PEOPLE (as opposed to doctrines, or faiths) can rise above this. How? It's not easy! If people can rise above dogmas, and if people can all start to think for themselves, and adopt the "learn from everything, follow nothing" approach, the organizational structures will become more dispersed and the power pyramid will drastically flatten. This will result in a society where the conflicts are mostly local rather than on a scale that create wars. However, as long as people uncritically follow what has been handed down to them, conflict will be unavoidable, since conflict is encoded deep into many doctrines (what people call "faiths").

I wouldn't sign it. First of all, I don't like to pledge to anyone. If I make a vow it's between me and me. My vows can be changed too, so I am not on the hook. I don't hook myself and I don't run myself into a corner. I can always change direction. Secondly, some of the lines are objectionable: Such as: First of all, how do you know you have stopped discrimination? Wouldn't you have to discriminate discriminating mind from non-discriminating? Anyone who practices contemplation would immediately spot this bullshit and wouldn't fall for it even for a millisecond. Since discrimination cannot be stopped, a proper course of action is to become careful and responsible in one's discrimination. Another term for discrimination is "discernment" and it's a good quality. Suppose someone goes around proposing violence as the answer to all problems? Should I respect the dignity of that person? I don't think so. At least, I will not be respecting it to the fullest extent, and at the worst, I won't be respecting it at all, as in zero. But that's my own discrimination. I generally don't like violence and don't like to use it as a solution to anything. For example, I am against mutilation as a punishment. I am against the idea that a good society can be built based on the fear of punishment rather than based on holding in common a positive holistic vision. That's my discriminating mind at work. Now if a person appears advising contrary to these principles, my level of respect drops based on the scale of their activity and the flavor of their message. It's quite possible I will lose all respect for their "human" dignity. Generally that's what I practice. However can this be dogmatically practices at all times? Sometimes energy arises that demands vigorous participation. For example, if you are attacked, what do you do? It's possible to remain non-violent, but to me, that signifies one's departure from the involvement in the world. And depending on commitments that one holds with regard to one's vision, this can be very dishonest. For me, I prefer to leave the options open. I may remain non-violent, or I may dance the dance of the moment. If caught in the whirlwind I may become the whirlwind. As long as I don't see it as a pattern, it's OK. If this becomes a pattern, then I may need to take a more principled stance in non-violence. So leaving this flexibility open for myself is essential. I don't want to close my options, and in fact I cannot. So pretending to have closed them is dishonest. Well this depends on what we want to include! What if someone promotes a religion that advocates killing people who quit that religion? Should I be inclusive of this? My answer is, hell no. I take a principled stance against this and will never be inclusive of this kind of violent attitude. Inclusiveness assumes that at worst the people you are going to include are annoying. This is not always the case. I have a huge range of tolerance, but it sure isn't infinite. I am more tolerant than anyone I know. When I am on a chat channel for example, I am the one who is least likely to ban anyone, even some extremely aggressive and annoying people whom other operators ban habitually without even thinking much. But even as tolerant as I am, I have no tolerance and no inclusiveness for those who themselves practice non-inclusiveness. And so forth. I think the sentiment behind the proposal is generally a good one, but it comes from a person who is not very developed in contemplation. It's kind of idealistic and mindless, even if well intended.

There are two kinds of teaching. Teaching the principles and teaching the details. If you teach the principles, you can leave the details up to the student and you don't need to check them or verify them and so forth. This can be done with a book, and in my opinion, is by far the most useful thing to learn. The reason for this is because the principles are something that's universally applicable and they allow you to work with any manner of forms. On the other hand, if you teach the person some details, which is to say, you teach them something concrete with a definite form, there is no way to know if the person is getting the form just right, or if the person is getting all the details just right from a book. This is when you need a teacher who has mastered the details to verify that you are executing all the concrete details correctly. This level of teaching is problematic, because it's never universally applicable. It doesn't work in all contexts. For example, if you learn a chakra system, can you help a horse? How about an octopus? I think the answer is obvious: no way. That's because the chakras are not a universal principles, but rather some details that emanate from a particular system. For example, if you read Castaneda's books, you find out they don't even see any chakras, but see these energy compartments. But what's interesting, is that they don't teach that those are predetermined. Some people have 3 compartments and others have 4, and if the yaqui sorcerer looked at an octopus, they might see something completely different. This is a little better than a chakra system in that it's not predefined in advance, but it is still something that's detail oriented and requires a teacher to master. It's something that works with concrete elements of experience. So, the principles are abstract. The details are concrete. The details are an inferior teaching, because they are always context sensitive. That is to say, they apply only at a certain time, to certain people, to certain environments and cannot necessarily be always duplicated or be always meaningful. Principles on the other hand have wider applicability. But the problem with principles and the reason people don't like to learn them is because the principles are abstract. They are intangible. And people like the instant gratification of tangible results. People want to learn something they can feel right away. Further, when you learn a principle, you become responsible for implementing it. And people don't like to be responsible. People like the idea that someone senior to them can make it all better and fix all their problems. That's comforting. But that's also very inconvenient, and in the long term, it is very harmful because it sets up a wrong kind of relationship between people: leaders and followers. Followers are by their very nature uncritical, and thus, mindless. Learn from everything, follow nothing -- this is a slow, and in the short term possibility impractical process, but healthy in the long term mind habit to learn. Follow everything, and as a consequence, learn nothing -- this is a process that sometimes gives quick and even useful results, but long term sets up a deadly habit that will bring about your downfall as you descend into a state of mindless reflexivity, stupor and slavery to phenomenal appearances. If you are careful, you can combine the two approaches, but this carefulness can only be maintained if you take the learn from everything and follow nothing as your dominant approach. If the tendency to follow is dominating, eventually your care will dissipate until strong pain forces a re-evaluation.

Newborn babies carry the subtle imprints of violence, that's why they are not visible. Violence is not always bad. For example, when you split firewood with an axe, that's good. Or if you participate in a sport like say Judo, that's arguably good too. I think we all know what the bad violence is. The point is that our nature is to be dynamic and our dynamism is not always smooth and sometimes the sparks must fly, but how, when, in what context, how often, etc., they fly is up to us to a large extent. What influences the violent expressions are our core beliefs, and these are informed by the dominant doctrines of various cultures. Sometimes these doctrines are mostly explicit and sometimes they are mostly implicit and anything in between. For example, if you grow up with a doctrine that declares that the infidels must be killed, that's a source of violence right there. Or if you grow up in an environment where only the strong coercive people get respect, that's another source of violence. This would be a doctrine of "might makes right" practiced implicitly. Or if you grow up in an environment where people are not allowed to express themselves fully. So the dynamic energy of our being becomes bottled up, blocked, and eventually explodes. This can happen, for example, in a society where our natural sexuality is repressed. The doctrine here is something like "some of our natural behaviors are bad, and are to be forcefully suppressed". This leads to frustration which then leads to crankiness which then leads to violence. In all cases the only way to reduce violence is to change the operating assumptions, or the core beliefs. This can be very hard to do, because various cultures cling to their doctrines so very stubbornly, as if their very survival depended on them. Often challenging or even just discussing some aspects of these doctrines is taboo. That's why violence of the bad kind persists. It takes great courage to start asking questions of one's own doctrine. One may need to pay with one's own life for doing that sometimes.

Because I am not happy with what's currently manifesting and seek to change it. I don't seek to end all suffering or anything like that. I seek to discover a way to live an empowered life that's open horizon to horizon, unshackled by anything whatsoever, be it laws of physics or other people's feelings/expectations/ignorance. Among other things I seek deep deep rest for a long time. I need a billion year vacation. Nothing less will do. I am just that tired.

There is a reason for that. What does it mean to be at rest? Does it mean you must be still and arrest your mind? Beyond a certain point stillness is a forceful modification upon the natural mind. True rest means to cease from attempts to modify your experience. It means you cease from creating unnecessarily turbulence and you also cease from trying to impose peace or passivity when dynamism is more natural. That's a very subtle point to understand. This is why experienced meditators do not sit still even when they "sit still". They cough, shift their weight, scratch their ear, move their head. They are truly relaxed, child-like and are uninhibited by the preconception of "stillness". They are still because they don't care about stillness. They don't know what stillness is or what movement is. To understand this one has to contemplate. If you just try to perfect a form of meditation without contemplating the inner meaning of meditation, you can really get lost in mindless or even harmful rote instead of becoming more fully alive.

I also voted no, although what I practice can be converted into a martial application. I don't have much intention to fight using fists and I don't foresee a lot of fighting in my life. For the little fighting I may have to do, I am fast and ruthless enough when I have hostile intentions that I don't usually go beyond 1 or 2 hits. To me, if the fight drags on beyond that it's either a loss or a sport or I am not serious in my intentions, and I am not interested in any of those scenarios. I much prefer peace. Instead what I like to do is calisthenics, like push ups, pull ups, running and kettlebells. I do those primarily for health and self-exploration purposes, and secondarily for strength and stamina development. I'd be open to learning either Systema or Southern Style Praying Mantis if there was a teacher within 10 minutes of me. There is no way I will travel more than that, because I am not desperate for it. I'd also be interested in an internal style, but the problem is that every internal stylist I've seen or heard of so far was a moron of some kind who didn't understand basic spiritual truths, i.e., was basically a fraud who taught movements but not the essential wisdom. Alternatively they don't speak English, and I am not motivated enough to learn Chinese yet. You name it. Nothing to brag about, but that's my situation/perception.

Yea it can be damned hard to swallow that your own mind would kill you or sabotage your happiness. For example, one time I had a dream where I was in a fire and I died from asphyxiation in the dream (in that case, instead of switching to another dream, which is what sometimes happens when I die in dreams, I woke up). I've had countless dreams where I was either attacked or exposed to damage of some kind. While dreaming, it sure as heck seemed that the damage was coming from outside of me, but when I woke up, I realized it was all the same one/whole/unbroken mind all along. To say that "it was just my mind" is a way to signify an unbrokenness or the endless continuity of mind. It doesn't have to imply ownership or possession. It's just practically impossible for people to understand what it means for the mind to be whole. It's much more intimate and immediate to refer to "my mind is the whole mind", to use words like "my" or "yours" to make it immediate, intimate, familiar and to demystify it to some extent.

No neurons friend. It's just mind. What's almost impossible to understand, especially for most of the Western Philosophers, is that mind is not something in the brain. It is something primordial and it is not even "something" at all. Most of the Western Philo is strongly rooted in a doctrine of physicalist materialism, and this doctrine blocks the understanding of NDEs. The mind can be structured via different possible (potential) mindsets. Depending on the mindset that's dominating, you appear as various beings. If you have a human mindset, you appear as a human. If you have a formless god mindset, you appear as a formless god (without a body or location in space). If you have a mindset of a squid you appear as a squid, and so on and so forth. Among humans there is a huge variety of mindsets. For example you can be a physicalist materialist, or you can be spiritual (the opposite or a complement of physicalist materialism) and so on. Having a sense of "me" is just one experience. There is also an experience with "no-me", but it works against the potential of "me". In other words, no-me is related and dependent on me. So you know what you expect to find when you look for yourself. When you fail to find any of it, you experience the so-called no-me state of mind. In no-me state, either some or all familiar features are absent, but you are not stupid or in an oblivion, you understand intuitively what's happening, because the mind is ultimately omniscient. Let's go back to the body for a second. What happens when your body changes to the point that begins to contradict your idea of the body-alive? Your mind can no longer associate with it, that's what. Deep in your mind you have a mindset that tells you what it means to be "alive in the body". When your body changes beyond that point, a disassociation occurs. Now, when I say "disassociation", I don't mean your body is left on the side and your mind flies away. What I mean is that the vision of the body either dissolves slowly or spontaneously collapses. The body is not ultimately real, do you see? What happens to your dream body when you wake up? Where is it? The same thing happens to this body after death. Whether you consider NDE real or not depends on your validation framework. Validation framework is a mindset that separates your experience into real and unreal. It's what tells you that something must be a hallucination, "because there is no way it can't be real." Validation framework is something that you can learn to control, but for most people it is something that's a product of their culture and past "lives" or just past time. It's kind of like a mind habit. I hope this helps.

Out of the western stuff I recommend Chaos Magick over anything else, if you want to use magick to get practical results. Franz Bardon has good insights that are in line with those of people who seek enlightenment. In other words, if you want to use magick for the purpose of self-knowledge, then I would recommend Franz's writings. If you want results and getting things done, then Chaos Magick. I realize chaos magick is not a book, but if you punch it into amazon, you'll get your books. Further, there is a lot of decent free chaos magick material on the web. Oh yea, also Castaneda's books on nagualism are great. Technically South and North America are "western" right? I don't know! West of what I guess is the question?

Then the identity of a human will not suit your needs.

You are doing it wrong then. Most likely this is because you are heel stomping, which is a no-no in running, but many even olympic runners do it. www.posetech.com Unfortunately posetech has too much hoo-haa bullshit on it, when the gist is simple. You land on your foot right under your center of mass on the ball of your foot. If you incorrectly heel stomp, the landing happens ahead of your center of mass, which has a negative effect of being a speed-bump that your center of mass has to overcome, besides the fact that heel is not "designed" to land on during running. When you land on the ball of your foot right under your center of mass, you then allow your body to fall forward under the weight of gravity, and pull the free foot back under, land on the ball under your center of mass, fall forward again, and so on. When you execute this it feels like you are gliding along the pavement. Your center of mass should be going along a straight line, instead of bouncing up and down. The heel during the landing should ALMOST touch the ground. In other words, to an outsider it might look like you are almost landing on the middle of your foot, but your weight is always on the ball of your foot. This allows for a natural spring effect to preserve your joints' health and to eliminate the speed bump from your running. If you haven't been using this technique, when you first start, it is murder on the calf muscles that aren't used to it. But bear with it. Within a month or two you will acclimate and no longer notice any discomfort. If you run correctly, there is no pain at all! You can run till you are 120.

I don't think there is a single book that changed my life. However, I've read many great books that have been influential, and if I make a list of them, I am certain to miss many. Some of my favorites are (in no particular order!): Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra Chuang Tzu: The Inner Chapters Lieh Tzu Avadhuta Gita Rumi's various writings Buddhahood Without Meditation The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena by Longchen Rabjam The Supreme Source Tantra Shodoka: Song of Freedom All books by Richard Bach, and Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah in particular All of these are heavy hitters, but there are many more to mention.

I think the answer is the same as to this question: "What the goal of having a job? Is having a job related to enlightenment?" It's a tricky question. On one hand, having a job may be related and essential for enlightenment. On the other hand, it might be what's blocking your enlightenment from manifesting. Energy is a mundane phenomenon and has the same utilities as other mundane phenomena. For example, using energy, you can maintain health, warmth, be able to process food better, need to eat less, and so forth. I wouldn't say any of this is necessary for enlightenment, but it can make things convenient and handy, especially if you are poor and cannot afford a thick robe or electricity. One thing energy cannot do is to magically give you enlightenment by opening up some "chakra" in your body. Enlightenment is not something mechanical, like having a piston open in your body as if it was some engine or some such. Enlightenment is wisdom. It is seeing the big picture. It is being free from confusion regarding all phenomena. Enlightenment is a state of ultimate wishlessness where your actions are completely unnecessary but serve only as ornaments. Enlightenment is an insight into non-duality between having any amount of wishes and wishlessness. Enlightenment is transcending all possible mundane events. Enlightenment is understanding that there is no ultimate difference between mundane and non-mundane. And so on. None of this happens because you moved some energy from point A to point B. Energy work is like holding down a job. You can be a carpenter or a plumber or a janitor, and you can get enlightened in all three cases, even though those jobs are all quite different from one another, except that they allow you a more pleasant time living in the meanwhile.

That's a brilliant question. I cannot help but think that the person who posted it is really a sage who already understands the issues intimately and doesn't need an answer for oneself.

First, I check to see if the story is good. If it's good, I leave it be. If not, I contemplate why not and what's at the root of the problem. Then my story gradually changes as the contemplation process moves forward. One thing I don't do though is to create a story about having no stories. That's a spiritual lie. So if something sucks, instead of pretending I don't have it, or trying to divorce myself from it, I take responsibility for it and own it. Detachment is another form of attachment. I just don't do it. It's one thing to take things less seriously, but it's another thing to attempt to detach yourself from experience. Detachment is an experience in and of itself. How can you detach from an experience of detachment? Had you practiced contemplation, you'd never even post such a question as quoted above, because it would be painfully obvious to you that assumptions that your question is based on cannot hold up to analysis. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say 5. Middle of the way careful. Not reckless, but not so careful that I stifle myself and am unable to share my story. Often enough. Yes, because by doing this you socialize your experience, you make it a part of the convention, and this makes things easier, because constantly transcending convention for every little thing is hard. Convention is called "convention" because it does have some force/legitimacy, at least for anyone on this forum. So to try to go against it too much is too much work. An approach I like is to introduce new experiences into a discussion. At first they might be unfamiliar. They might get criticized, or what's better, analyzed and critiqued, and this accomplishes two things. It allows your experience to enter into convention and to find its place there. And during this process you have a say in just how exactly this happen. You and other people get to test the story, to poke it, to pull it, to bite it, to try to fit it this or that way and see how it all works out, whether it is consistent or not, whether it contributes to life or makes life more of a chore, whether it simplifies life or makes it more complicated, and so on. Then for you as a person who wants to transcend convention there is less work to be done if convention is already self-transcended to some extent. It's like jumping off a raised platform. If the platform is very high, you don't need to jump up that much to reach the clouds. If the platform is high enough, even if you don't jump at all, you are above the clouds. But if the platform is low, no matter how much you strain, you cannot jump up to the clouds. In this metaphor, jumping is contemplation+meditation, and raising the level of the platform is the work you do to raise the social consciousness of all around you through open two-way discussion. If you have a sincere question, why do you ever have to apologize for it? Is it because it might insult or inconvenience someone? What's your own sincerity worth to ya?

What is the point of this comment? You just want to poo-poo this guy to make yourself feel good? At least this guy is not stoning a woman who has "wrong" sex. At least this guy is not cutting off a hand of a little boy for stealing a quarter. There are real tossers out there in the world, but even then, wait for the tossers to make a wave, and then respond to that wave. But don't just pick someone out and say "Jee, what a tosser". That's lame. Calling other people "tossers" without a provocation says more about you than it does about your "target". And if you just must criticize the guy, don't say he's a "tosser" and stop there. Instead give a well thought out critique. Explain what's wrong and why. Of course this takes some work and good intentions. If you just want to make yourself feel better by calling someone a "tosser", there is no need for writing up a critique, is there?