goldisheavy

Maybe this shows how materialistic I can get, but this one point seals the advantage to me, together with the veggie meals. If it's that much cheaper, then there is no doubt it's worth it. I had no idea Goenka retreat was free. I thought there was at least a nominal cost. I think that point alone would seal the deal. Back in my e-sangha days, I've heard mixed reviews from Goenka retreats. However, most complaints centered around the, what some people perceived to be, cult-like and hypnotic figure of Goenka himself. I haven't heard of any complaints as far as the community or meals or the environment go. Plus, many people just plain liked Goenka. This peace of mind is worth something. A lot of this stuff is dependent on the level of interest, the firmness of resolve, and intent (three ways to say the same thing). If your level of interest is very high, there is little or no chance you'll get distracted and there is no need for a structured environment. On the other hand, if your level of interest is flagging, a structured environment will help some and may even boost your interest to the point where later on you could be in a retreat mindset no matter where you were. For example, dream yoga. I know anyone who sleeps can practice dream yoga. So only the firmness of resolve is necessary for this practice. As far as formal walking, standing, sitting, lying down meditations go, I agree this might be a little awkward if your family is not already habituated to such things. This is why I would never keep some things like meditation a secret. What if some day I want to meditate in front of my wife or friends? If I made sure to keep my spiritual life a secret, then I might be in an awkward situation later on. This is why all my family and friends know about such things, so that if I ever do them, there is no surprise.

Steve, I think lucky7 was saying that ultimately there is no such thing as human nature. But you were saying that, relatively speaking, day to day, we have to contend with human nature. There is no contradiction. For example, what is uniquely human? As we learn more and more things about animal and animal intelligence we realize that many things we thought were uniquely human turn out to be present in animals as well. But let's pick one -- cooking food and fire building. Ok, let's say that building a fire and cooking food is a uniquely human trait. Ok, that's one trait, right? I am sure we can find other traits like that. For example, in humans, there are enormous differences between trained and untrained individuals. For example, a trained individual can deadlift 600 lbs, while a non-trained one cannot deadlift even 300 lbs. I think humans are unique in that sense, because other animals are very close to each other. So animals either don't train as purposefully as humans, or whatever little training they do, doesn't produce any amazing difference. Thus, most chimps have the same levels of strength and most horses run about equally as fast, and so on. And the difference between the trained and the untrained horse is not as great as between a trained and untrained human. Or how about a trained and an untrained octopus? Or trained and untrained dolphins? Trained animals can have significant behavioral differences of course. Still, I think humans are the most intentionally malleable species. Another unique trait is endurance. Humans are built for endurance running, and out of all species we can run the longest. This is why humans can perform endurance hunting like no other animal in the world. At least not on land. So maybe if we take all these unique traits together, in our mind, we can regard them as "human nature". It's what sets us, humans, apart from other life forms. This human nature is not absolute though. It's not ultimate. It's just a reflection of how things are NOW. It doesn't mean it will always and forever be like this. For example, maybe octopuses will come out of the ocean and learn how to build fires? Or maybe chimps will learn how to build an airplane later on? There is no way to be absolutely certain that such things will never happen. And if we apply any understanding we currently have, it's actually entirely within the realm of possibility. Alternatively, if we look at all the traits we have in common with other animals, I think we can see that we are more alike than we are different. So if we are more alike than different, can we still say we have "human" nature? Or is it just animal nature? Suddenly the idea of human nature is less obvious. So I think lucky7 was pointing out that if we question just what is human in human nature and how definite and certain is it, we may find that the more we question, the less human humans seem to be. This points out that as we reach for the ultimate comprehension, labels begin to melt into each other. But at the same time, if we don't reach for the ultimate comprehension, but just do what we do day to day, there seems to be a clear difference between humans and other forms of life. Humans are considered "stuck" by people considered "enlightened" because we dwell too much in day to day concerns and we don't reach for the ultimate concerns often and strongly enough. The difference between an ordinary person and an enlightened person is that an enlightened person has a balanced view between ultimate and day to day concerns, while an ordinary person is utterly lost in day to day concerns and is too lazy or too uninterested, or too mesmerized by day to day concerns to dwell on and comprehend the ultimate concerns. This is why you hear talk of renunciation, non-attachments, etc... all these are tools to help shift from day to day concerns to ultimate concerns. However enlightenment is not a condition where only ultimate concerns are present or where ultimate concerns are dominant. Rather it's a condition of harmony between ultimate and relative concerns. Ordinary people live in a state of disharmony, because they are dominated by day to day concerns exclusively. So I think that's what lucky7 was pointing at. I don't think luck7 was actually contradicting anything you were saying... he was just testing to see if you have a good appreciation for the ultimate concerns, that's all.

Is retreat cheaper than a vacation getaway of the same duration? I think the biggest thing there is what will the wife think, right? For example, if you go for a week in Hawaii, alone, your wife might wonder "what the fuck is going on here???" How do you explain this to her? On the other hand, if it says "retreat" right on the invoice, that will raise fewer questions. However, as far as simply getting away from home for some alone time, I don't see how formal retreats have anything superior on the offer compared to other options. For example, if you go to a camping ground and set up a tent for a week, that's easy and cheap. There are other people there, but no one is going to care if you meditate in your tent, or if you meditate in the forest and no one will care about the particular type of meditation you do. And depending on which camp ground you choose, other people may not even be all that close to you. So picking a formal retreat vs. simply getting away has only two advantages I can think of: 1. explains things to your wife/husband. 2. has a teacher there. Number 2 is pretty worthless, unless it's a 1 on 1 with some Buddha-level teacher. I can guarantee you that I can tell you everything any retreat teacher will tell you. Maybe even better. And I am almost certain that you, Steve, will know almost as much, if not more, than any teacher on any retreat. If I am wrong, I would like to know, in precise language, what is it anyone learned from a retreat teacher that they didn't know before. So it seems like number 1 is the only issue left to consider. In my day, I have plenty of time to do whatever I want. My wife also meditates and would understand if I wanted to meditate any amount. So I wouldn't have to go anywhere. My only limitation is my own intention and not anything physical in my environment. This is why I don't go on a retreat. I know if I was serious, I could do a retreat right in my own home. --- I just thought of one other concern. If you get into a weird state of mind, it might be good to have a friend there, like a babysitter. Kind of like drug sitters. In this sense retreat might be better, because it might come with a sitter. But if you have a friend to go with, that concern is eliminated. You can take turns with your friend between diving deep and babysitting. Also, not everyone cares about such things. Some people will be OK with whatever happens and will not want/need a sitter there for extra safety/comfort.

I haven't been to a retreat, but I think it's a good idea. First, no one knows what you're practicing. You can listen to Vipassana instructions, if any, and just proceed with your Daoist meditation. Is it so terribly bad and wrong? I don't think so. Secondly, I think Vipassana is fine as is. And it would be cool if you could share your experiences after you came back. So how does this work for you? Are you married? If yes, do you bring your wife along or what does she say about that?

This is very similar to how I used to be recently. And sometimes I still fall into that mode, although it is very unlikely. These are just my reflections. Take them for what they are. There is some waiting. Waiting is good. This is because what you allow to come to you from the depths of your heart and mind is not easy or simple. A baby takes 9 months in the womb before it comes out. But don't think of this as a unique or final event, as in, you'll emerge from your waiting with a new vision, and you're done with waiting forever. It's not like that. Nothing is necessarily forever, although cycles or phases can be arbitrarily long. These can happen from time to time. So it's important not to burden the mind with the idea that something momentous and final will come to you. Instead the mind should be relaxed and open and not too overly burdened by anticipations of any kind (at least, not beyond what is easy and natural to anticipate). So in this waiting, slowly, a new vision of life will emerge. That's what happened with me. I know what I live for. My values are changing. It's not just insights. Insights take time to digest. Go over your insights 10,000 times. Even if you know it already, just looking at it again and again is good. First, it can open new angles you've overlooked. Second, it reinforces a certain way of thinking. This is habit formation. Habits are bad things that lock us up in prison, but they are also good things that liberate us. Run away habits are bad. Conscious and careful habits are good. For me it's become clear what kind of life I want. But it is distant as of yet. To make my vision a reality I have a lot more softening up of my mind to do. I'm in it for the long haul. This is not a sprint. This is a 10 billion year long marathon, or longer. This doesn't mean I'm a slow poke. It just means this is something that's ongoing. It also means I don't look forward to quitting anything. Because my practice is not a burden. Because it's not a chore. It's not formal. It's fun and joy because it's what I make it to be. It is who I am. Because of this, I am well position for a 10 billion year run. In other words, when the idea comes up that I might need to be in my current condition for 10 more billion years, that idea is no longer scary or intolerable. My mind is not easily disturbed if my vision is not one of instant gratification. So every day I enjoy the flavor of my being. I reflect that all is mind. I enjoy this every day. I know this every second of every day. I know it when I eat and when I play games. I know it when I sleep too. I even have fun when I am not having any fun. This is hard to explain, but it's true. That's because my being has many layers now. I am not a simple wave anymore. I am some depth of the ocean if not the entire ocean now. For me it's possible to have one thing happening on the surface and another thing happening at depth, without contradiction. So this is how I take it day by day. Maybe you're like me? If so, maybe you'll find something useful in what I am saying. Row, row, row your boat, Gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Life is but a dream.

I forgot one more thing. If it's too hard to keep still and watch your breath, you can try walking meditation and allow your attention to drift toward the rhythm of your feet. This also has a tendency to ground you, especially if you keep your attention low and close to the ground. This is what I used to do for a long time. For a long time I couldn't sit still either. I was too jumpy in a profound way. Furthermore, my breath is a very intimate "part" of myself, and when I pay attention to it, I connect with my own fragility, and this used to freak me out. I thought I might stop breathing or die. Why? It doesn't necessarily make sense, but that's what my mind was thinking if I focused on my breath. So I walked instead. After a few years of walking, I could sit still. Not that I sit still much these days (at least in a formal or a semi-formal meditative pose anyway). But if I want to, or have to, it's not a problem and I can enjoy it. I have to give credit to de_paradise's post up above for reminding me of this:

I've read about siddhas healing by putting bandages on the ailing parts (just simple bandages with nothing in them). Leaves. Ash. Hitting the ailing part, or otherwise causing some pain to the ailing person. That's just a tiny taste of possibilities. Anything is possible. You can put a keyboard on someone to heal them. What matters is what's in your deepest heartmind and not what you do outwardly. At least, all the healing that's based on mind works like that. Alternatively you have materialism. According to materialism the body is a machine and if it breaks you must fix it like you do a machine, and sounds just won't help. Can you fix your car by singing a tune, if you're a materialist? No, you cannot. But I've heard of wondering sorcerers fixing cars by hitting them with a walking stick. How does this work? Obviously from a materialistic standpoint that's nonsense. But if you understand that the car is an emanation of mind, you can heal it with an apparently nonsensical action, if that action's meaning is honestly and deeply significant in your mind. The point is this... if you're a materialist, forget songs. You need to learn how real medicine works at a real college of medicine. Then do an internship for 5-10 years, and then you'll be a real doctor. On the other hand, if your mind is open to sounds as methods of healing, you have to understand how this works. If you quibble over which sound is the right sound, you're still using the wrong mindset for this approach, the kind of mindset that's much better suited by a college degree than by shamanic learning.

Every situation is workable. What you do depends on your situation and not just on some overriding fact. So for example, if there is a war going on, that will be your overriding fact. But you're asleep. What do you do? You sleep. Sleeping is your current situation. If you have loosened up your belief system to free up your intent a bit, you have an option of dumping your body as well. This is another way to work with the situation, that's not necessarily open to everyone. Harder than ditching your body is to heal it from severe injuries like you describe. But that's an option at some level too. But no matter what level you're on, you always have options. For example, you can meditate, or work out some difficult maths problem in your mind, or compose music, or just go to sleep. I don't mean to imply there are literally "levels" of development though. There are really no levels. I use that word for convenience and not because it's precise or correct.

This story is relevant for the correct sound: This applies to healing sounds too.

Do you understand the meaning of actions? If yes, your question is gone. If not, you're wasting time probing sound, when you need to focus your energies in a more higher order way. Namely, instead of investigating the meaning of some sound, investigate the meaning of any action. This will give you the keys to all actions, including sounds, but not limited to them. On the other hand, if you make your thinking very concrete, and limit it to one sound, you'll just be wallowing in your belief networks without understanding what's going on. You'll be caught in your own dream, without knowing that it is a dream and without learning how to dream. For example, what causes disease? Next time you get a flu, contemplate it. If you never get sick, you should get sick on purpose, so that you can contemplate sickness. Once you understand sickness you'll begin to understand healing too. When you understand healing at a high level, you can understand all forms of healing naturally. On the other hand, if you apply some technique in a detail oriented way, you'll never understand anything. One more example. If I give you a recipe for soup, and you follow my recipe to a T, you'll never become a chef. Even if follow 10000 recipes, you still do not OWN the cooking processes. You don't own the meaning of food processing. You don't own flavors. You don't own flavor combination vision. A real chef own all of the above. This is why a real chef doesn't worry about recipes. Instead one focuses on higher order concerns: what does heat treatment do to ingredients? What does smoke do to them? What does moisture or dryness do? What flavors are there? How do these flavors combine? What happens to nutritional value during processing? Once you understand this, you can make your own recipe and you can alter anyone's recipe in a competent manner. You'll own cooking. If you follow a recipe you rent cooking. Rent a place to live or build a place to live to own it. See the difference? I'm saying all this assuming you're wise. But if you're a fool I've wasted my time.

I specifically mentioned "doing nothing" as one type of doing.

Just relax. Be more forgiving. If you want to move your arm, move it. If some topic comes up, think about it. You can do all that while paying attention to your breath. Don't enter into an antagonistic relationship with your feelings. Instead be a friend of yourself. Simply allow your attention to fall on breath under its own weight. Don't force it. Just allow your attention to drift toward your breath. Don't hammer it mentally and don't try to control it too much. Understand that your mind is doing what it thinks to be important. As you grow spiritually, some things, like various topics, will become less important to you, and it will become easier and more natural to be without those topics. You won't have to force yourself, because it will be natural. Your body getting jumpy is a reflection of your mind. Once your mind settles down, your body will too. The trick is not to fight anything. Be your own friend. Don't approach yourself as a general would an underling. Don't try to boss yourself.

Can you find people willing to argue with you? Whatever it costs to find them, is what it costs. If you can afford an internet connection, you got it covered. Plus you have your friend. You have to be deeply in touch with the contents of your own mind to be good at arguing. You have to know how you think and why, and this is neither easy nor obvious. Most people think, "These are my thoughts, of course I know how I think and why." The reality is that most people don't know what they think and why. At least, not as completely as they imagine. We often think some things without realizing we think them. And the reasons why may be buried deeply. Being able to present your side of the argument is part logic and part psychology. It's part logic and part feeling. To be the best logician you must also be the best feeler of feelings. Logic is intimately tied to feelings and is not separate from them. And vice versa. Be mindful 24/7. Pay attention. What does it cost to pay attention? Why is it that what your friend said or acted touched you so? There is a reason. Find out why. Maybe a deep part of you really thinks the way your friend thinks and you don't want to admit this to yourself?

All paths based on doing are erroneous. For example, making energy rise up is in error. Making it go down is in error. Purposefully abstaining from involvement is a form of doing, thus is also in error. Basically all forms of manipulation, positive (purposeful involvement) and negative (purposeful non-involvement) are in error. Why? Because the intention behind all positive and negative manipulation is to enact some kind of desired final state. The problem lies in the belief that there is such a thing as a "final state". As long as you believe it, you'll always try to attain it and your life will be one of laborious difficulty and ignorance. You'll fall prey to cults, to various money grabbing gurus, become a sex slave, or worse. In the best case scenario you'll just waste your time feeling unfulfilled, chasing the next big dream. This kind of scheming and plotting mindset has been pointed out as an error by Taoists like Chuang Tzu. Of course no one gives a rats ass about that, because Chuang Tzu is not a kundalini or chi guy, so he's not in style now.

It's a myth and it's real. All the baggage is a myth. Deeply transformative experience is real though. But in this sense, there may not be one enlightenment, but an endless series of enlightenments. As far as the one grand final enlightenment goes, it's a myth. A carrot. Or maybe even opium of the people.

You have a good intuition. But it takes a lot of skill to take something that you feel is intuitively correct and express it with undeniable hard logic. A lot of skill. Let me say this again: a lot of skill. And how do you get this skill? You must practice! Debate. Debate. Argue. Over and over. After about 10 years you'll get very good at this. Then you will be like me. So let me tell you what happens next. You'll be able to argue so well, that people won't be able to deny your arguments logically, BUT... they still won't believe you! Ha ha! You still won't convince anyone. Once someone decides to hold to materialism, just pure logic will not win that person over. Even if you give the best argument, what you will win is silence. Your opponent will be silent, but they won't be convinced you're right. But don't take my word for it. Do it. Debating skill is mostly good for your own internal use when you need to think something over. It's good for dissolving rigid boundaries internally. So it's still not a waste of time to develop it. But if you think your debating skills will win people over, I have a bridge to sell ya.

What matters is not the pitch of the sound but the intention behind it. And what matters is wisdom that's behind your intention. If you're a fool, your intention will have limited impact, because you'll have many beliefs that will sabotage your intention. If you're wise, your intention will have more power. If you understand this, then you can make use of anything for healing: sound, touch, random coincidences, dirt, smells, anything at all. You could even heal the person by taking a crap on them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/be...ty-gregory-paul I found this article very interesting.

I agree completely. But even if both things you're comparing are disease you'd better do without, they are still not all the same. For example, I'd much rather have a flu than cancer, if I must have one of them. Not all diseases are of the same severity and not all of them produce equal amounts of suffering. This is why I don't like it when people try to equalize, for example, all forms of dogmatism. While all dogmatism is bad, the cultural influences of some dogmas are far worse in real life day to day practice, than others. To me that's important. Because even though ideally I want to be rid of all dogmas, pragmatically, I want to move to more flexible and more harmless dogmas as an interim solution.

That's a cool video. I think it might be a good idea to use these devices for training. Why not? They have one good quality in that they are very sensitive. I would probably go for the lamp though.

I disagree. Religion is defined by infallible dogma. While science has dogmatic aspects, nonetheless, it's not as blatantly dogmatic as religion. Science tolerates at least some modifications to its views, although it certainly does not tolerate well its fundamental assumptions being challenged. But even then, when science doesn't tolerate the challenge, it reacts via snobbish elitism. On the other hand, religion often reacts violently to challenges. So science is still preferable to and different from religion even in its dogmatism. As bad as reductionist materialism is, if I had to choose between them, I'd rather take the curse of the materialism than the curse of the religion upon myself.

It's an interesting idea. But why use this as a feedback and not anything else? My guess is that if the tiniest fluctuations within "random" data is all that your mind can tolerate, it's a good start. At the same time, I am thinking that if you're ready to experiment in this way, you are probably ready to tolerate a bit more influence on appearances than that. This approach is good when you're trying to convince a physicalist of the mind's influence on or inseparability from the environment. It's because the physicalists will pretty much dismiss out of hand anything even slightly more impressive than this. So you need this kind of approach to get your foot in the door, if you want to have a dialogue with the physicalists.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard so far. Obviously you never bothered to read what Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) had to say about Confucius and Confucianism.