goldisheavy

I agree. It's not the distance that people talk about when they say this. It's that usually experiences are suggestive. If we then follow these suggestions and take them at face value, we tend to lock ourselves in and limit our horizons. So for example, if I am a man, a human, goldisheavy, a specific individual, if I have a body, and if bodies have physical properties, and if my intent expresses through the agency of the body, then what is it I am capable of? By having all these beliefs I just limited myself. So how can we go beyond the limitations? One technique is to suggest that you are not anything you experience. This isn't to put a distance between you and your experience. It's to break the suggestive power of appearances over your mind. Your body suggests itself as something small and physical, but if you aren't it, then you are neither small nor physical. This can broaden your horizons. But all experiences are intimate. There is no distance.

Obviously, eh?

There is something like this, but I think you exaggerate this effect. Enlightened people still eat if they have a chance. They don't decline food because starving is perfectly identical to eating. And if the woman is pretty and intelligent, her company is enjoyable to most men, even to enlightened ones. If the woman is dumb, then an enlightened person is more likely to avoid her even if she's pretty. Basically enlightened people are relatively less superficial, but not necessarily infinitely so. Like Aaron said in another post, they can have plenty of their own issues. If you want to have no issues, you have to give up your dreams. That's not necessarily the place to be. It may be a good place for some people for some time. But is it for you? Is it for everyone? I don't think so. If you look at how enlightened people have been portrayed by tradition, they do have all kinds of dreams and goals. For example Buddha wanted to enlighten others. Lao Tzu wanted to travel. If Lao Tzu didn't want to travel, why did he leave, right? He could have stayed. He was welcome and respected. If you read other stories about sages, they all had dreams of some sort. Some of them practiced to gain supernormal powers. Others wanted to pass the wisdom to future generations. Others lamented their misfortune (described in Zhuangzi, for example). There were all kinds. It's actually a good idea to read as many such tales as you can to get an idea of just how broad the possibilities are. Get a sense of how diverse the characters can be. Some are calm and peaceful. Others are angry. Some follow convention, others go around trashing every taboo, etc. All these people are individuals. I bet some of them even had pimples rather than auras. If you want a get a good collection of stories, one book I can suggest is "The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Fundamentals & History". Please don't interpret this as me promoting Tibetan Buddhism. I don't want anyone to become a Buddhist, but reading some of those accounts about various sages can really be illuminating for anyone. Because almost all beings who are considered enlightened have goals, dreams, things to strive for, vows, they all have issues. They all have feelings, they have ups and downs, pleasure and pain and so on. They might not be buffeted by those as harshly as others and they can have a better, more flexible perspective, but they aren't complete foreigners to us. They are somewhat like us, and like you specifically. You are somewhat like all the enlightened people.

Well said, Aaron. I agree. I think that people can transform themselves, but transformation is slow and gradual. There is no point at which the desires just cease. Instead, they change. Old desires fade. New ones take their place. This is a gradual and smooth process. The problem is with the idea that enlightenment is like a light switch, once it's on, it's on. It's nothing like that. Instead all people have some wisdom. Some people have more wisdom and some less, but no one is 100% deluded and no one is 100% wise. We don't reach these extreme states. Even the dumbest person has some wisdom. And even the wisest person has some residual foolishness. A lot of people imagine than enlightenment is like flipping a light switch. What was dark becomes illuminated. Bah. It's nothing like that. One experience can be like that. But after that experience passes, you realize not much has changed. Old habits die hard. Old beliefs still have plenty of force left. Old fears still seem menacing, even if they are reduced. What then? Well, then the person has to continue contemplating, meditating, and in short, simply continue living. You'll have more experiences. You'll have new insights. Maybe one day you'll think "I am now enlightened." Then 10 years later you might think, "Boy, 10 years ago I thought I was enlightened, lol... I am way wiser now than 10 years ago, so if I am ever enlightened, it's now or never." Then 10 years ago you might again think that you've advanced, and what seemed like a dizzying height at the time, now seems like a mole hill. And so on. And in some sense, you're always right. You're always enlightened because it's relative. If you are wiser this moment than previous, you've been enlightened. If you are more foolish, you're endarkened. And then enlightened again. It's not a big deal.

The gods are not in control. You are. When you are ready to do something, no god or gods can hold you back. This isn't something you need a security clearance for. It's not something that involves convention, agreement, or permission from others. You're right. Belief is fundamental to spiritual techniques of all kinds. But keep this in mind though... your belief will invalidate some techniques while validating others. If some door closes, another one opens! It's never the case that beliefs only close doors and nothing else. Sometimes the doors that are open are boring, so some beliefs may be preferable to others, but at the same time, no one is truly stuck. The bird can't swim, but it can fly. Fish can't fly, but it can swim. Blind rats can't see, but their other senses are superb. Everything is balanced in this way. People who are stuck in an Earthly realm due to their belief in physicality are given abilities that may baffle spiritual entities. People can make machines for example. Enlightened beings in astral realms may not be able to make machines, since they don't believe in something that's mechanical. They may have all kinds of personal power, be able to change shapes by intent alone, but they might not be able to comprehend how a machine is made. Because they don't believe in substance, all kinds of substance-belief-related abilities are closed for them. Now sure... some of us are bored of substance and want to move on. So for us having substance related abilities may seem like having a pimple. Not very attractive. That's just our personal evaluation of abilities. It doesn't mean substance belief isn't attractive from a different perspective or that it lacks abilities.

Your opinion has been noted. But the fact that is unknown is not itself in dispute, right? It's definitely known. It's one of those known unknowns, right?

Cells don't vibrate. Cells wiggle and wobble. Vibration as a word has a specific meaning. It implies a very mechanical back and forth, measured, relatively constant fast motion. So a guitar string vibrates. It goes back and forth, equal distance, quickly, symmetrically and so on. There can be other aspects like standing waves and so on. So vibration, as a concept, is excellent for physics. It's terrible for spirituality. Consider this. I am not my body. If my body vibrates, which it doesn't, it's not me who vibrates. It's one aspect of my experience. My body feels steady, calm. It doesn't move back and forth. It doesn't rattle. It only vibrates in a theoretical sense, or in a sense that physicists mean, but not in an experiential sense. I am calm. Steady. Peaceful. I don't vibrate. I stay. I am like this. Solid peace. Total presence. I don't go back and forth. I am what my intent is and my intent doesn't vibrate. My intent is like a river. It flows. It changes. But it doesn't vibrate. It doesn't have a mechanical quality to it. It is hard to put it in words, but vibration is not the right word for it for sure. It's basically nonsense. Think about it. Vibration is motion. How can stillness be induced via vigorous motion? If your mind vibrated, it would fail to be still. If I punch your body, are you still? Probably not. If your mind is subjected to some kind of psychic vibration, is it going to be at peace? It won't. It may be happy if you enjoy vibrating. But if you don't enjoy vibrating, if you actually want rest, you'll not be happy. In any case, if you experientially feel like you are vibrating, by all means talk about vibrations. I don't feel like I am vibrating, and honestly, if we get down to it and start asking people one by one, "Are you vibrating?" "Are you?" "And you good sir?" I think most people would answer "no." I think most people experience change, but not of the kind that can be described as vibration. Here's another problem with vibration. In physics light is considered to be vibrational. Red side of the color spectrum is lower frequency and blue is higher. So is red less spiritual or lower than blue? Is blue more enlightened than red? To my mind the answer is obvious: no no no no. All colors are equal. All are defined relative to each other. Red makes blue blue. Blue makes red red. Etc. The entire palette of color is pure. Red is as high and enlightened as blue is. Blue is as dirty and disgusting as red it. Etc. Does red symbolize blood or lust? Or does red symbolize warmth and home? Does blue symbolize open sky? Or does blue symbolize cold ice? Each color can have positive and negative associations. The power and the relevancy of these associations depend on our minds. There is no color that's inherently higher or lower than any other. So talking about higher vibrations is bullshit. Because if higher vibrations were more spiritual, it would mean blue end of the spectrum is preferable to the red end. I don't see that at all. Not at all. I don't want to be color blind. If I have a preference for the blues, I am striving toward color blindness at some point.

It's not limited to humans. Never was. Reincarnation does not assume linear time at all. Reincarnation speaks of successive experiences which follow one after another. It says nothing of the contents of those experiences other than to say there is a link by way of ongoing intent. This link is said to be unfathomable except in the broadest and most general terms (good intentions lead to good results, which is very unspecific and it can even be untrue in some cases). Even Buddha could not predict the specifics of future lives and he advised people against trying to work out the specifics of the results of intentions, lest you go insane (not literally). It's not limited to Earth. This isn't Earth anyway. It's an experience where there seems to be a planet. People call it Earth. There is a difference. There is something that looks like, or suggests itself to be Earth. To go from that to "this definitely is Earth" is a huge logical leap. Conventionally we consider this experience to be located in a place called "Earth." But spirituality goes beyond convention. It goes to examine the nature of all experience.

This "teacher" is exceptionally stupid. He's not enlightened at all. Be very careful with this guy. He'll intensify your delusion rather than clear it up for you. Replacing "something" delusion with "nothing" delusion is a fool's game. He's not showing you how to investigate matters. Instead he's putting his foolish thoughts into your mind (because you allow it).

..................

True, but I'll never admit that I support something only because people who oppose that something are small-minded idiots. Everyone wants to believe that all the support they get is absolutely genuine. Why shatter that illusion?

Good one. I somewhat agree with this sentiment, but one should keep in mind that there is no group without individuals. So if all the individuals are sane, how is it that the group is insane? And again, if only a few individuals are insane, how can the entire group be insane? Why would only a few insane individuals make the bulk of supposedly sane individuals act insane in a group setting? What I would say is this. Groups tend to exacerbate individual insanity. Individuals are indeed insane by and large. But alone, they don't have a way to give their insanity a complex, sophisticated and powerful outlet. In a group setting, a simple bit of insanity that is harmless in an individual can become pervasive, enshrined in bureaucracy, laws and institutions of society, and thus become extremely damaging and hard to avoid. I think Nietzsche was trying to extricate himself from society which he saw as sick. He should have looked in the mirror and accepted responsibility to an extent. Instead he blamed the group and held himself blameless. That's weak sauce.

This question is difficult to answer because in order to determine what is best, one has to have access to some alternatives. So let's say you start 10 universes using identical starting conditions. Then you meditate in Universe 1 on compassion. In Universe 2 you meditate on wisdom. In Universe 3 you meditate on non-attachment. In Universe 4 you meditate on formlessness. And so on. Then you compare the results after 3 long aeons. Then you proclaim one of those meditations to be the best one. The problem is, you can't start 10 universes. So you can't compare meditations. Even if you meditated one way and then another, and a positive change appeared, how would you know this change was simply not a delayed effect of an earlier meditation? Because effects can be delayed, it would be incredibly hard to pinpoint which meditation is doing what exactly as far as the world state is concerned. Besides being delayed, effects often get mixed too. So the results you experience today may be a mix of your present and earlier intentions. So this makes determining what is comparatively best difficult, if not outright impossible. So, with that in mind, if your intent is to eliminate injustice, and you approach this from the perspective of wisdom, namely you don't limit yourself by well wishing, but you go on to actually examine the causes of injustice in detail, to learn from them, to understand them, to understand how they arise and cease and vary with different circumstances, to understand various factors at play and so on, then eventually the result will be a very good one. I don't know if it's the best, or second best, but it will be decent, imo. I'm assuming your actions will reflect your developing understanding.

I don't think Nietzsche is that bad, if he can even be considered bad. I think he's decent, maybe even helpful for a lot of people. I was only reacting to that one paragraph. I myself haven't read any Nietzsche, but when I talk to people who love his work and who have read it, I mostly see decent people talking sense (something I can't say about people who love Ayn Rand, for a counter example). I hope no one interprets what I wrote as an overall slam of Nietzsche.

Death is also impermanent, for one. Two, death is a tool used by Maya to anchor the illusion of the Matrix. If you knew you were deathless, would you really follow all the bullshit in the Matrix? No. You need fear, or otherwise some kind of weakness, to be controlled by illusions. If you are fearless, you cannot be manipulated by fear (which most of the manipulation rests on). So in my movie Death is a low level employee of Maya. Maya's chief lieutenant is Mr. Ignorance. Without fear, the only other exploitable tendency I see is craving. Aversion and addiction, both rooted in ignorance. Also worth noting is that aversion is a dislike that's too strong. And craving is a preference that's also too strong. So not any old dislike is aversion and not any old fancy is addiction. Similarly, Maya is not a villain all the time. In some cases Maya is like a dude in charge of the projection booth in the theater. It's there to give you a good experience and not necessarily to rip you off. And if you get caught in the movie, you shouldn't beat up on the projection man. It's your own fault.

Karma doesn't accumulate. Karma is simply intent and intent is always in the now, it's always fresh. What accumulates is karma vipaka, the fruition of intent, and it only accumulates to the extent your mind presents an environment with psychic inertia, where the state of affairs is liable to continue as if it had its own separate force. This is false. Humans do not become animals unless they want to and strive for it very hard. The normal trajectory for any sentience is always status quo. Your tomorrow is likely to be very similar to your today and yesterday. This is a good bit of fear mongering that's bandied abound mindlessly and harmfully by some Buddhists. To be reborn in a realm where things are softer and more amenable to mental control, one doesn't need "good" karma. One needs a specific karma. You can be an evil individual and still be born in what you call "astral plane". How you treat other humans has only force on the social relations you are likely to encounter in your future life. It has little to no impact on the solidity of objects in your future realm. So someone who engages in strife is likely to be born in a realm with strife. But if you want to experience a realm where objects are not so hard and where they can be changed by the mind, it won't help to be good to others. You'll need to specifically transform those beliefs in the mind that keep the objects hard in this realm here. The idea of vibration is bogus. Your being doesn't vibrate. The reason you can sense vibrations is because you don't yourself vibrate. Vibrations are foreign to your being, thus they can be sensed as distinct changes. Forget about vibrations. Unless your bones rattle when you walk, nothing is vibrating. Throw that junk out of your mind. You should only speak of that which you experience. If you don't experience vibration, don't talk about it. Something would have to rattle to be felt as a vibration. When you're at a rock concert, then talking about vibrations makes sense. Otherwise it makes no sense at all. Qualify... love it. Very bureaucratic word. I get an image of someone checking the paperwork and then putting a stamp on it. This I can agree with.

After thinking about this topic some more, I realized another way to think about it is like this: Will the feeling you have in the morning influence the kind of day you will have later? Yes or no? What will be the scope of influence if yes?

I appreciate your concern. Thank you and thanks to K, and any other people who have shouted out as well. The question asks about your past though. Well, the word "before" has two meanings. One meaning talks about the past. That's the obvious one. The other meaning talks about something fundamental, something more essential than what we're habitually observing. So, one can say before I am 'goldisheavy', I am human. In this sense, being a human is more fundamental than being a specific kind of human, namely 'goldiseavy'. The problem is, this second meaning is not obvious, and teachings should be skillful and helpful, preferably immediately, and preferably without necessitating secret mental gymnastics. If you want someone to perform mental gymnastics, it's better to just say so straightforwardly and openly, without it being a hidden and implicit ask. Generally, if the person is bewildered, it's not a good idea to use puzzles as teaching tools. First, the confusion should subside. Then, once the mind is clear, one can be given a puzzle in the right context. One would be shown how to contemplatively work with the puzzle. Exactly as you are doing now. But one would show that before giving the person such puzzle. And from what I've read about it, in Zen tradition that's exactly what happens. Before the koan is given, one is expected to have some background in Buddhist literature. And then one is shown how to work with the koan. And then there are periodic interviews which help to control the work that happens with the koan. All in all, koans are losers, imo. Everything koans try to say can be said better directly, without chicanery, and contemplations can be equally as productive, if not more so, without the use of puzzles as tools. Thing is, even the regular "straightforward" experience is already plenty puzzling on its own. There is no need to puzzlify it even more on purpose. You're talking about an immediately understood and sensed level of intent. Thing is, when you go to sleep, do you intend to hang on to your waking experience? I don't know about you, but I don't. I intend to let go and forget, to the maximum extent possible. And yet, the content of dreams is generally similar and readily relatable to the waking experience most of the time. Not always. But most of the time. Why so? The question about death is a very similar one to the question about dreaming. Will the last feeling you have before falling asleep determine the dream you have after you fall asleep? I have some experience with this. And the thing is, the last feeling may have a significant impact, but it will not determine every aspect of the dream, and nor will it work consistently either. So relying on a feeling at the moment of suicide to put you into a heavenly realm is a false hope. This is my answer to the question that's been asked. If you can help it, it's better to die with a good feeling than to die with a bad one. But one feeling will not all by itself direct your destiny.

If words are meaningless, then what is the meaning of a phrase "direct experience?" Does it refer to something valid? What's an indirect experience? Isn't it time you looked at things more critically and more alertly and stopped pedaling tired old phrases in a very absentminded way?

You don't start from an empty place. You already know something. When I say "you already know something" I don't mean that the state of your knowledge is inerrant. It may be a reliable sort of knowledge or it may be a kind of knowledge that leads to disappointment down the line. Nonetheless, you have some kind of knowledge. How do you know what you know? If you seriously investigate this issue, you will find something important. So the real answer is contemplation and intent. First you need to aspire or intend to know something. Then you need to contemplate. And you will eventually know whatever it is you want. Along the way it's very important to be maximally honest. This means no exaggerating and no belittling of anything. No twisting of anything. And avoiding satisfaction by half-truths. If you found something true, do you stop? Or do you keep searching? If you stop, you may be settling for a half-truth. All knowledge is rooted in assumptions. Where do assumptions come from? All knowledge is relative (short defines long, dark defines light, manifest is defined by unmanifest, and so on). Is there something unrelated? If nothing is unrelated, what is this one all-embracing relation? Please keep in mind that I am only stimulating your mind. You are the one who knows. I am trying to answer, but you are the final authority. You'll accept some answers and reject others. Why? How can you have the power to be the final authority? And yet you are, aren't you? Who determines what you accept as valid and what you reject as invalid? Anyone but you?

I am smiling. I am OK being a mom for a time.

Why is it a curse?

Is being told the way to know anything? What if I tell you that the sky is green, does that mean you now know the sky is green, because I told you so? Obviously knowledge is not rooted in telling. Telling serves an important function in mental stimulation and in the shaping of convention. But convention is not knowledge. And mental stimulation can be very helpful, but it doesn't in and of itself lead to knowledge.

I am in complete agreement with you cat. Yea, if tulku doesn't actually crave an answer and is just posturing with fake/troll questions, that's a different matter. But I don't know tulku (much) and I try not to assume too much about his motivation (at least at this point). Maybe he's a troll. What if someone who is not a troll reads this thread with the same question in mind? I remember a time when I had serious questions. I was desperate for answers. If someone gave me a puzzle as an answer, I would be very upset. It's one thing to use koans as contemplative focal points when you are well beyond the elementary question phase. It's another thing to ask a basic question and to get an evasive answer or worse, to get as an answer a question that has a built-in false assumption at its core.