goldisheavy

I found the book. It's called "Heart Drops of Dharmakaya." If there is interest, I can try typing up the chapter on Togel (that's how they spell it). It's relatively long and it involves a lot of typing, so think about it. I suggest all interested parties buy that book.

I would agree with non-ordinary before I will agree with acausal. I might agree with the acausal label too, but I want to know what exactly do you mean by causal (and thus, what is acausal) before I decide. If we look at intent along the poles of tension and relaxation, I find that: tension: structures (partitions, organizes, establishes clear relations), makes patterns more rigid relaxation: de-structures (makes delineations more questionable and sometimes they might disappear altogether, reduces organization, relations become unclear), makes patterns more flexible up to the point of patterns disappearing from perception altogether These directions are very abstract, and I've been inspired to see it that way by investigating in part how my muscles work. In particular I noticed that relaxation is an intentional state -- it is not a falling away of intent. Because if intent fell away during relaxation, how would it return during subsequent tension? So it's obvious to me that intent can never be discarded. It can be changed but not discarded. In fact, when we do discard things in life, every such act is itself intentional. At the same time, lots and lots of things happen in life that ordinarily we feel are not a result of our intent. For example, the sky is above and the Earth is below. I feel like no matter what I want, this is the case. On Monday it's the case. On Tuesday it's again the case. 2 years later it's the case. I am not aware of placing the Earth below and the sky above and this situation seems to maintain itself despite anything I intend, at least upon superficial examination. Such examples are countless, and this is the main reason why people believe in substance to begin with: it is these stable recurring patterns that give people the idea that something, namely substance, is propping up and legitimizing the patterns. But there are problems with this way of thinking. For one, in lucid dreams all the same patterns often assert themselves, and they can even be hard to break even when you know you are dreaming. I've had dreams where I was perfectly aware I was dreaming, and even then, it would still take me extraordinary effort to fly. So what does this tell me? First of all, we are more relaxed in dreams, thus our intent has more freedom in a dream. But the patterns are a big deal, and they manifest themselves in dreams and sometimes even in visionary experiences too. They seem to be deep and are not subject to trivial meddling. Knowing that one is dreaming helps tremendously to act contrary to patterns. Knowing that acting contrary to the pattern is possible, this helps tremendously. Knowing that you'll soon wake up, and there will be no long-term consequence is helpful tremendously. This removes the fear of screw ups. If we start playing this way while awake, there is a fear that we might permanently screw something up, and there is no "waking up in the next few hours, and resetting everything back to normal" in that case... or at least, that's what the fear tells me. When I am saying "we" I really mean myself, but also anyone who feels similar to me. If it's just me and I am wasting a "we", please forgive me. Dreams can be 100% as visceral and as real as waking experience. I've verified this for myself numerous times. Secondly, some patterns in waking experience are subject to meddling. An obvious example is feeling cold or hot. If you feel hot, you can make yourself feel colder by intending it (either nakedly, or with the help of a visualization), and if you feel cold, you can make yourself hotter the same way. Another aspect of intentionality is low-to-high order aspect. Here's what I mean by it. When we are walking, do we micromanage what our feet do? Usually not. Right? You just intend to walk forward, and you walk forward. Normally we don't worry where to place each foot. That would be too micromanage-y. But is it possible to become aware in a precise way where each foot is placed and to start controlling each and every step? Yes, that's possible too. So controlling walking step by step is something I would say is a lower order intent. It's more specific and more concrete. Controlling walking purely by direction and speed, without worrying about steps, is what I would call a higher order intent. It's higher in a relative sense. And all intents can be arranged on a scale of low to high order. Since high order intentions are less specific, the details of their workings out depend on preexisting habits it seems, unless the intent is specifically aimed at dissolving such habits or otherwise meddling with the habitual patterns. This dimension is orthogonal to tension and relaxation, but it's easier to engage in a higher order intentions when relaxed. So one can be tense and engaged in a higher order intent as well as in a lower order intent. And one can be relaxed and again engage in low and high order intentions. That's why I say these dimensions are orthogonal. Yes. I've read about this. Maybe I'll get a chance to dig up something about this. Based on my vague memory, thigles appear as visionary bubbles amidst ordinary seeing. The bubbles are filled with fantastic visions. Eventually they expand and mix with the ordinary seeing. The teaching I've read states that these bubbles should appear spontaneously based on trekcho and other prior practices. But sometimes they don't. In that case there are exercises to force (cajole, if you will) them to appear, such as putting pressure on eyeballs, or staring into space without blinking, while ignoring eye dryness or excessive eye watering, etc. So that's interesting in and of itself. This tells me these experiences are highly individual, depending on each person's mentality. I also believe I read to "mix one's mind with the matter of the external world." That's a rather crude instruction, but basically to me it means to stop seeing the external world as something that's outside mind. Because the above is from my memory, I wouldn't overly rely on it. I'm just putting it out there to promote investigation. I'll try to find the book where this is mentioned. I believe it's from the Bon tradition. I think the limits are obvious, since we live with them every day. The potential is also pretty obvious... it is essentially limitless experience, similar to what's described in Yoga Sutras of Patanjali or in the Suttas dedicated to listing fruits of contemplative life. I think a good way is to first investigate your waking perception. In parallel, try to achieve lucid dreaming, and investigate the world of lucid dreams. Lucid dreams are more flexible, or even much more flexible, so try things and see what happens. Resolve both investigations against one another, because after all, you're investigating one single sphere of mind. I think one should resolve what one finds in lucid dreams against what one finds in waking experience. Well, it depends on what you mean by enlightenment, right? If your definition includes tolerance of the inconceivability of all phenomena, then gradually practicing magic is pretty much the only way I know of to achieve such tolerance. That's just one way to answer this. I can answer this in many different ways.

The intensity of the slap will vary depending on how absorbed I am by whatever is happening on the computer. If I am very absorbed, the slap will be less painful and less noticeable. If I am distracted, the slap will feel sharper and more painful. Can't you abandon this exercise at any point? You didn't push your awareness, but you still permitted it to move in that direction whereas you could have blocked that experience had you so intended. Intent doesn't have to feel like force, or pushing. It can be relaxed. It can be abstract (rather than concrete and specific). It can be mystical (as opposed to mundane). What do you think?

Interesting! Sometimes I notice tiny vibrations or ever-so-slight shimmer in my visual field. When I focus on that shimmer, I begin seeing white smoke billowing around in ways that seem to defy physics (as in, if this was "real" vapor, it couldn't move in these ways, curling into itself at times, which makes little sense from a physicalist POV). I believe this is a very similar phenomenon to what you're describing, except this one happens in the visual field instead of the audio field. Luckily this doesn't happen unless I specifically look for it. I think it would be a bit annoying if white vapor or smoke started to show up in random places.

Being kind to oneself is not a bad idea. Those who can't be kind to themselves end up being callous to others as well. The thinking goes, "If I could rise to a challenge, so can he/she." Then, "I didn't need pity, and neither does he/she." This then leads to a kind of attitude that says everyone gets what they deserve. So a billionaire deserves to be a billionaire. A homeless person deserves to be homeless. This encourages injustice, apathy and callousness and promotes status quo. It's basically how conservatives think and it's terrible. It's good when you can rise to a challenge. And it helps not to victimize yourself in your own mind. But this is a two-edged sword. It can hurt as easily as it can help. It can lead to a place where we don't appreciate other people's suffering and don't want to help them out.

Scotty, No one can take away your practice. If something works for you, it's in the bank, done and done. How can anyone touch that? How can people steal or dilute your experiences? How can people plant beliefs in your mind that you don't want? It's impossible, right? Is there a single spiritual teacher that generates a universal agreement? I can't think of one. Jesus was crucified. Buddha had (and has) many detractors. And that's talking about the famous guys. What to say of less famous? Anyone who sticks their neck out with teachings is liable to receive criticism at some point. Sometimes that criticism is undeserved and is not based on logic or experience. Sometimes it's deserved and well supported in both reason and experience. People who don't like this kind of dynamic stay private. This is easier in some ways, because by not exposing your opinions, beliefs, and methods you don't invite criticism (or praise). At the same time, this way of behaving doesn't benefit people very much. It's selfish. It's doing what's best for you and being unwilling to slightly hurt or discomfort oneself (or one's ego/mask) for the sake of others (other egos, masks). I think there is merit in both staying private and going public, but I lean toward public, especially if what you know is truly beneficial for humanity to discover. In any case, Max has metaphorically hung up a shingle, opened himself up to the public. And here we are. I hope you can brush this stuff off and return to this thread Scotty. I don't think anyone has ill intent. I am sure (pls correct me anyone) that if you feel the practice has been beneficial for you, people support it at least for you (even if they themselves don't want to try it). No one (again, pls correct me if I am wrong) intends to hurt or disrespect you.

Illusions aren't prejudiced like that. Look outward and you'll find illusory appearances. Look inward, and again you'll find illusory appearances. In both the outward and inward appearances there is an element of truth. Which is to say, appearances have suggestive meanings which can easily deceive when taken at face value, but not everything about appearances is deceptive. Appearances are also all that there is. There is nothing but appearances. In this abstract sense appearances are very honest and never deceive.

Welcome back! What's interesting is that your main post is at odds with the subject/title of your submission. In the title you ask if any of us struggle with our sanity. But in the main post you seem totally at peace with what's happening, no indication of struggle. So I'll briefly explain what happened to me. Short answer is: yes there is a huge struggle with sanity (sometimes trying to maintain it, sometimes fighting it like it's an enemy that's blocking progress). I started out with some spiritual intuitions, but otherwise a strong atheistic background. In the beginning I was totally naive. The power of the mind was purely theoretical for me. So for this reason, my intentions were honest and very strong, because I had no idea how powerful it would be in that period of relative innocence. So I would do things like stop time, leave my body, and lose the boundary between myself and the world. As well many really crazy things would happen that defy sanity. At some point I understood where all this was going -- toward a complete breakdown of reality as I know it. And I began to be very afraid! At that point I closed my heart, stopped practicing and everything returned back to normal. I was still interested in spirituality, but I limited my intent to study and contemplation. I wouldn't intend to stop time or leave my body like in the past, where I would easily, almost jokingly intend and accomplish such things. So since then I've been re-opening and loosening up, but now it's a gradual process and I kind of know what to expect this time around. So I am going toward "craziness" with my eyes open this time. As for sanity, when it vanishes too quickly I feel like I have no home, no place where I belong and like I know nothing. I want some kind of anchor, some world about which I can say "I know this world", and some place to call home. So I want sanity to come back. At the same time, I fully realize that sanity is a prison. It's my desire for all this familiarity and comfortable predictable rote that keeps me chained in this realm and in this form. I think everyone's path is unique. I tried to briefly describe what happened to me in the past, but I wouldn't say I am exactly like you. I believe I understand what you are feeling, but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot, imo.

If you got energy into your brain, you can certainly get it out. Specifically, if your head feels bloated, heavy, about to explode, put your attention 30 feet into the ground, below yourself, and keep it there. Keep your mind's attention deep inside the Earth, quite some distance below your body. Do this continuously and your head will deflate. Speaking from experience. (I'm assuming your head inflated from some spiritual exercise and not from something else, like a medical condition or physical trauma, in which case you should check yourself out at the hospital first.)

I think the teachings should be considered separately from the teachers, but marketing does reflect on the teacher's personality. If the teacher doesn't block the embellished and inflated marketing, it reflects (poorly) on teacher's personality. So marketing can't really be separate from the teacher, imo. But teachings should be separated from the teacher.

This seems like a sane and respectable attitude on one hand. You don't want to waste time. At the same time, while your search is in progress for a master who can display an obvious and overt level of energy, presumably you are doing something, right? Because if you're not doing much while you're waiting for your friend to find you a good master to follow, I'd say you're also wasting time. Would you consider what Wim Hof does subtle? I would consider it subtle, personally. Win Hof never, to my knowledge, demonstrated a fireball, or telekinesis or similar things. He can keep warm in the cold, which is something you can learn yourself with relatively little practice (less than a year I would say). He demonstrated control over his immune system, which again, I believe is something you too can learn relatively easily (say 10 years). But none of this stuff is gross, like shooting fireballs from your hands, lighting light bulbs or LEDs with your fingers, tolerating huge electricity flow across your body, eating glass and harmlessly shitting it out, and similar tricks. Nonetheless, you seem to respect Wim. If Wim offered to teach you, would you accept his guidance? Just curious.

I'm slightly confused here. Wouldn't you associate with someone like Max purely for the practice? If the practice is legit, then what's the problem? It's not like you have to marry your daughter to Max or something.

Then we're mostly in agreement. Except I want a bit more control/influence in my rebirths, rather than outright cessation. One has to be seriously fed up with sentient living to want to permanently get off the wheel. I think maybe I would enjoy a break from limited sentience, but eventually I'd want to be reborn as a relatively limited being. I just don't want to be as limited as I am now (or more accurately, as I experience myself to be).

I generally don't like to talk about God, because that concept brings more harm than good. However, if I am talking about God in a positive sense, then what you are saying above is exactly what I believe too. This I don't believe. I believe that most people don't return to the state of godliness upon death, nor is it the state they are born from. I believe in reincarnation. The state of godliness is nirvana, and has to be attained through intentional practice. It's not a default state for most beings, imo. Science is pretty flexible and scientists always change their minds. There is a popular opinion that universes are bubbles that arise out of pre-existing other universes rather than being created from void. In this scenario there is never a void, except as a hypothetical state.

Ah, if these definitions are not meant as strict definitions, but as departure points for contemplation, as contemplative tools, then it all makes sense.

You can't see yourself. God can't see itself. Whatever God sees is not itself. So this being unable to see itself is darkness, but God still knows oneself without seeing. The known is contextualized by unknown. So for known to be what it is, it must be encased by uknown. Out of all the ways of knowing, you currently know this way. Then this way. Then this, and so on. But all ways of knowing are options, selections. They are always partial. Even if your knowing became impartial, it would forsake the partial knowing, thus still remaining partial. So the unknown is always there and can't be eliminated.

16 contradicts 3 and 17.

tulku, you are utterly clueless. You're obsessed about sex. It's obvious that's your personal problem. Beyond getting a relatively small amount of money, you don't need money to get sex (unless perhaps you are so undesirable that you have to pay huge sums to women to have sex with you and they refuse to stay afterward). Of course women want some financial stability, and there is an occasional gold digger, but beyond that women make judgments about men that are much more complex than just evaluating the net worth. Find a girlfriend and live with her for 10 years. You'll see what's what. Your ideas about sex are naive and utterly disconnected from reality. People want money mainly for two reasons: they want insurance against homelessness, disease and early death. Beyond that, money translates into power. And people want power. People enjoy seeing their intent have wide repercussions. They enjoy this creative power. And if you want to play by the rules of the materialistic world, money is the chief way of acquiring amplification for the power of intent. I suggest you try to investigate issues for yourself. It sounds to me like you haven't given any issues any thought. You keep repeating some trash you read somewhere, over and over. There is no evidence of your own thinking behind anything you say. Just go for a walk in your neighborhood and make a mental note of how many couples are of modest means. Then count the wives of billionaires. This simple exercise should contradict your way of thinking about sex and money in a pretty big way.

Outside of ignorance, greed is a much bigger problem than excessive sexual desire. Greed, as in, wanting too much stuff, wealth, too many friends, endless accumulation, etc. I would leave the sexual desire alone and try to reduce greed, personally.

"Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles studying baker’s yeast cells discovered that the cell walls vibrate 1,000 times per second." Cell walls. Also, making these walls vibrate at a higher rate will not likely make yeast more spiritual, or even just healthier. In the comments to that article people also talk about various types of cells having various types of membranes. Some membranes are floppy, others are taught, they say. When you raise your vibrations, what are you actually doing? Are you becoming bluer on a light spectrum? Are European hemophiliac blue bloods spiritual people? Or do you think your cell walls vibrate at a higher rate close to the sound spectrum?

So who the guy fucks or how often is more of a problem than the insane wealth he amassed? That's a disgusting perversion of morals, tulku. Fucking people consensually hurts no one, but amassing extraordinary wealth does hurt millions of people. And yet you care about fucking, which is harmless, more than anything. That's truly pitiful, sad and pathetic. So in this realm, this man's love of women, that's the absolute worst you could find. Not economic injustice. Not murder. Not dictatorships... Those are fine. But fucking too much or showing tits on TV... oh shit that's HELL!!! That's Samsara!! Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting, tulku. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Good for you! People will always try to sell you things. As a consumer, you should be careful with what you buy. I'm not sure what you mean by "preprogrammed" dogma. Dogma is any belief that you're not supposed to question. To my mind, dogma is always bad. But what is "preprogrammed" dogma? What other kinds of dogma are there? That "preprogrammed" word doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Now this is a foul attitude. No one owes you anything that they must show you things. It's up to you to do your own searching. If you don't want to search, if you are happy to be complacent, then it's not anyone's job to show you stuff. It's not anyone's job to try to unconvince you out of your current beliefs, or to convert you to some religion. If you cross your arms, pull your head back a little, display a smug grin on your face, and say, "Show me" then you're just a scumbag. Physicalists sometimes call these scumbags "skeptics" but they aren't skeptics. A skeptic is someone who questions everything equally and not just the things he or she disapproves of. This kind of attitude where you'll have the entire humanity working itself over to prove things to you and where your job is to either accept or reject, that's foul. It's lazy. It's arrogant. It's terrible. Based on your other posts, I doubt you really mean it. So please don't think I actually believe you are a scumbag. But these words "show me" they have a place somewhere... maybe on a busy street, maybe in a pub. They don't have a place on a spiritual forum. No one has to show you anything. We can be friends. We can try to help. I help because I enjoy it. Not because it's my duty to show you stuff. Intent matters. If you intend to maintain your current beliefs, the status quo, I can be showing you stuff until I am blue in the face and it won't matter one bit. People are governed by reason and desire, both. Not just solely by reason alone, and not by desire alone. If you don't desire to change your beliefs, well, I pity anyone who will try to show you something that you don't already agree to on some level.

The mind is not the brain. The two are not identical. Physicalists naturally assume the brain to be identical to mind, because that's what their philosophical doctrine preaches. That doesn't mean physicalism is correct. Nor does it mean all spiritual people are physicalists who naturally agree with this sort of language. Or it does exist, you'll never be the same again. Or if not never, then not very soon. Not in a trillion years. The best way to answer this is to have one of those experiences yourself. It's not as simple as you try to paint it. It's not your neat little caricature. It's not merely a non-finding of whatever we were searching for. It's none of those things. These experiences are somewhat individual and unique. There might be similarities, but no two are completely alike. People find meaning and understanding in many such spiritual experiences. It's not just non-finding. It's more like a different kind of finding. When you walk into an empty room, is it a non-finding of a table that isn't there? Or is a finding of a usable space? If you discover you can move your arms around, is that a finding of freedom of movement, or is it a non-finding of a straight jacket? Spiritual experiences do not contain all meaning. Nor do they bring all understanding. Just like one flash of light may not be enough to understand the total contents of a dark room. It requires more light, more time, more reflection, some experimenting with the room's contents, etc. These experiences are valuable, even if they are not the end all be all of spirituality. They are not merely various types of non-findings. The best way to show that is for you to have one or ten such experiences for yourself. Preferably without the aid of drugs too, if you can swing it. (That way you won't have an easy way of associating the experience with some external power, like that of an external drug, you'll know it as internal and you'll be forced to deal with it without dismissing blithely as "meh, it's just the drug playing with my neurons" bullshit.) Yes. That's too abstract. Life is so broad, so vast, it encompasses everything, even what is currently inconceivable. So that's not very helpful. People want something more specific and less abstract. For example, if you want to develop supernormal powers, that's not just looking for life. That's a rather specific goal. If you want more wisdom, more understanding of phenomena and the relativity of meanings, again, that's not just life, that's more specific and more directed than that. For some people satisfaction is spending every day in a maximally hedonistic state. For others it's torturing oneself every day because of some belief that suffering will reveal some kind of truth later on. What is satisfaction? It depends on your aims, and on the context within which those aims make sense. So I agree with you here, but the problem is, you're not saying anything. What you're saying is so vague, as to almost mean nothing. Yes, it all starts and comes back to life, sure. But how is that helpful? There are so many different ways of living. For example, you can live as a bodiless being in a formless realm. Isn't that surprising to you? Is that just life for you? Do you even care? I don't understand this. It's as if we are failing to affirm life, but somehow, later on, we are forced to affirm it. I don't get it. Where do you get this idea that spiritual people reject life, so that later on they are somehow forced to affirm it, as if almost grudgingly? Seems crazy to me. Life is all there is. But life can take an infinitude of forms. You can have different feelings in life. Life can have different flavor. Life can be peaceful or turbulent. It can be empowered and empowering, or you can have a life of a victim. Life can be mysterious or mundane. Life can be confined to a spacial location, or not thus confined. Life can occur within linear time or it can flow outside time. Worms live in a way that's different from birds and fish. To lump all this with one word, "life" is like to be blind. All ways of living are interrelated, but there are still appreciable differences. For example, would you want to live all your life as a victim? As someone who must follow the circumstances at every turn, without any personal say in any important matter?

I used to get dreams of a nuclear war when I first learned about the atomic and hydrogen bombs as a kid. Learning about the a and h bombs has scared me and made me uneasy, and my dreams reflected that for a time. After a while I got used to the idea, and thought of it as more of a mundane and even theoretical detail that's largely irrelevant in day to day life. And I stopped dreaming of nuclear wars for the most part (99.999%). There was exactly one exception when I had an interesting spiritual experience around early 20's. In that experience I walked into a nuclear blast column on purpose. I wouldn't classify it as a dream. It was an experience. I wasn't dreaming, but rather, having a vision while meditating on the floor in my room.

Death is an illusion. For something to end, it must still be alive in the mind. Death is a moment of non-recognition. Like when you fail to recognize the liveliness of a person you used to know, you now refer to the person as dead. But how do you recognize people? People live in your mind. You know what people are like. That's why you know when those people are gone too. They are in your mind, still. If people were resurrected, you'd still recognize them. Why? Think of it this way. Let's say you have a picture on a TV. This picture shows you say Madonna. We turn the TV off. Now we can say that Madonna has "died." Well, but you still know what Madonna is like. She's alive in your mind. So say we turn the TV back on, and there is the picture again. You recognize it as Madonna. If Madonna truly died, how is it you can still recognizer her again? Why didn't recognition die too? In order for something to be experienced as missing, the recognition for that "missing" thing has to be alive and active more or less at the front of the mind. How is that a bunch of pixels on a screen can look like a forest or a cow? There is no forest or cow in my computer. What is this? All these things are in my mind. And if they are in my mind, then how are they born? How do they die? What is the delineation? Past which line do we say something is "born"? You know people can't even agree at which point humans are born. Some say they are born once they pop out of the uterus. Others say they are born upon the formation of the zigote. Others say when the clump of cells resembles a human shape after some weeks of gestation, then the person is born. Others say the person is born only when they can remember their first memories. So if my first memory is from me being 2 years old, I was born when I was considered to be 2 years old by others. There is no way to firmly establish a delineation of birth. Similarly no way to establish a firm delineation of death.