9th

its an entirely political move

Thing is, Padmasambhava is one of the key players in the Upaya scene. The story of his meeting with the emperor of Tibet comes to mind. This topic just isnt gonna be accessible for the large majority of people. Lets go ahead and resurrect the term "esoteric", because teachings of, about, and using "skillful means" (in the classical sense) are not a mainstream thing. Its really not compatible with most people in a general sense because it hinges so heavily on timing a great number of factors, a feat which requires great proficiency to accomplish. Im not talking about the "reimagined" modern idea of it, or some kind of quaint new-age reboot. To really pierce the ground level reality, "bridge the sky" or "nail it down" as it were - requires a totality of no-self, along with a great deal of experience in leveraging it socially. A handful of jackass gurus really already ruined people for this back in the 70s and 80s. However, it had to happen that way considering the state of our society and the ineptitude of those attempting to put it in practice. So we can thank them for getting that kind of debacle out of the way for us already. And accordingly it has soured a great many others up to this day on the topic, so that the very idea is already tainted to begin with. So now concepts of Upaya have this kind of negative publicity and historical baggage in a modern context. Honestly, to really proceed with this technique - its for the best. It was esoteric back in ancient times for a reason. And its the same reason it will live on esoterically in our present era. I can also say that in terms of cutting things to the bone, is not something that should be done more than very rarely. To achieve a productive result requires a number of windows to align, and in my experience most people arent there yet. I wish it was required all the time, as that would be a sign we'd be reaching utopia quite soon - where everyone would be on the same page already. Alas, its almost never required because almost nobody is ready for it, out in the general public. Inside a small group of dedicated practitioners, it may be a totally different story - but this forum aint that.

What it "is" involves questions of unimaginable profundity, and limitless unknowns - which are matters quite distinct from its "purpose" according to ceremonial magicians, in regards to their stance in relation to it and its role in the initiatory process. And in regards to such initiatory processes in the far east, the idea of the 'charnel ground' is relevant here.

Compared to what, exactly? Have you tried DMT? Peyote? Ayahuasca? Ibogaine? Ketamine? PCP? Crack? Your statement needs more context.

Franklin says of Consciousness without-an-Object and without-a-Subject (which, for elegance, he contracts to Consciousness without-an-Object) that it is "Consciousness that is absolutely neutral with respect to the presence or abscence of objects". It transcends the distinction between Samsara (the ‘world field’, where objects are taken as independently existent) and Nirvana (Consciousness-without-an object, but with a subject), which accounts for the dialectical structure of his Aphorisms on Consciousness without-an-Object. For each of the major notions (Space, Time, Law, etc.) that he introduces, Consciousness without-an-object is neither that nor its opposite. He subsequently found that Consciousness without-an-object corresponds to the state of consciousness that the Tibetans call rigpa. Of course, the state is not exclusive to the Tibetan tradition, but is simply Primordial Awareness, that is Natural Awareness (free of conceptual overlay)—our Buddha nature (our Enlightened essential nature, which is ordinarily obscured). - Ron Leonard I am just sharing the detailed views of someone who considered Brahman and Rigpa (as in Dzogchen) to be similar, as in regards to the topic of this thread.

pertaining to which cycles?

Wolff had been through the Vedanta training, through the philosophy of Shankara; he knew the philosophy of Kant and others of the Western world; and he spent twenty-five years working to achieve a state of Nirvana, Enlightenment, Samadhi, and so forth. In 1936 he succeeded in this transformation and with varying success maintained it over the subsequent years. He is an amazingly peaceful man now in his eighties. Meeting him, I felt the influence of his transformation, of his recognitions, of some sort of current flowing through me. I felt a peace which I have not felt in my own searchings; a certain peculiar kind of highly indifferent contentment took place, and yet the state was beyond contentment, beyond the usual human happiness, beyond bliss, beyond pleasure. This is the state that he calls the state of "High Indifference." He experienced this at his third level of recognition, beyond Nirvana, beyond Bliss. His perceptions in this state are recounted in The Philosophy of Consciousness-Without-an-Object. Krishnamurti's story of the Devil is pertinent here. Laura Huxley furnished me with a copy of it. The Devil was walking down the street with a friend, and they saw a man pick something up, look at it carefully and put it in his pocket. The friend said to the Devil, "What's that?" The Devil said, "He has found a bit of the truth." The friend said, "Isn't that bad for your business?" The Devil said, "No, I am going to arrange to have him organize it." So it behooves us not to organize either the methods or the states which Wolff describes so well. It is better not to try to devise groups, techniques, churches, places, or other forms of human organization to encourage, foster, or force upon others these states. If these states are going to do anything with humanity, they must "creep by contagion," as it were, from one individual to the next. God as Consciousness-Without-an-Object, if real, will be apperceived and introcepted by more and more of us as we turn toward the inner realities within each of us. If God as Consciousness-Without-an-Object inhabits each of us, we eventually will see this. We will become universally aware. We will realize consciousness as being everywhere and eternal. We will realize that Consciousness-Without-an-Object in each of us is prejudiced and biased because it has linked up with a human brain. - John C. Lilly

3. There is a sense of enormous depth penetration with two phases barely distinguishable during this first stage of insight. The first phase is highly noetic but superconceptual. I had awareness of a kind of thought of such an enormous degree of abstraction and universality that it was barely discernible as being of noetic character. If we were to regard our most abstract concepts as being of the nature of tangible bodies, containing a hidden but substantial meaning, then this transcendent thought would be of the nature of the meaning without the conceptual embodiment. It is the compacted essence of thought, the "sentences" of which would require entire lifetimes for their elaboration in objective form and yet remain unexhausted at the conclusion of such effort. In my relative consciousness I knew that I was thinking such massive thoughts, and I felt the infiltration of value from them. In a curious way I knew that I KNEW in cosmical proportions. However, no brain substance could be so refined as to be capable of attunement to the grand cosmical tread of those Thoughts. But still beyond the thoughts of cosmic proportions and illimitable abstraction there were further deeps transcending the furthest reaches of noetic and affective value. Yet, in this, the self-identity remained unbroken in a dimly sensed series of deeps reaching on to ever greater profundities of what, in one sense, was an impenetrable Darkness, and yet I knew It was the very essence of Light itself. 4. I knew myself to be beyond space, time, and causality. As the substantial, spatial, and transcendent "I", I knew that I sustained the whole phenomenal universe, and that time, space, and law are simply the Self-imposed forms whereby I am enabled to apprehend in the relative sense. I, thus, am not dependent upon the space-time manifold, but, on the contrary, that manifold is dependent upon the Self with which I am identical. 5. Closely associated with the foregoing realization there is a feeling of complete freedom. I had broken out of the bondage to the space-time manifold and the law-form governing in this manifold. This is largely an affective value, but one which, to me, is of the very highest importance. The quest for me was less a search for bliss than an effort to satisfy a deep yearning for Freedom. The most marked affective quality precipitated within the relative consciousness is that of felicity. Joy is realized as a very definite experience. It is of a quality more intense and satisfying than that afforded by any of the experiences or achievements that I have known within the world-field. It is not easy to describe this state of felicity. It is in no sense orgiastic or violent in its nature; on the contrary it is quite subtle, though highly potent. In the present sense, the essence of the water and the air lies in their being life-giving and life-sustaining fluids. The chemical and physical properties of these fluids are mere external incidents. In a sense that still remains a mystery to science, these fluids are vitally necessary to life. The joy-giving ‘force’ is Life, but it is life in some general and universal sense of which life-as-living-organism is a temporary modification. Thus, to be consciously identical with this ‘force’ is to be consciously identical with Life as a principle. It gives a feeling of being-alive, beside which the ordinary feeling of life is no more than a mere shadow. And just as the shadow-life is obviously mortal, the higher Life is as clearly deathless. It may be said that time is the child of Life in the transcendent sense, while life-as-living-organism is the creature of time. Right in this distinction lies one resolution of the whole problem of immortality. So long as the problem is stated in terms of life-as-living-organism, immortality remains inconceivable. In fact, in this sense, all life is no more than a ‘birthing-dying’ flux with no real continuity or duration at all. But the higher Life is identical with duration itself. Hence, he who has consciously realized himself as identical with the higher Life has at the same time become consciously identical with duration. Thus, death-as-termination becomes unthinkable, but, equally, birth is no beginning. - Franklin Merrell-Wolff

Its actually quite simple. Frequency refers to the rate of oscillation in a given cycle.

I think the IChing is much better used as a lens to view present situations and currents rather than as a precognitive device. It gives insight to everyday occurrences in a structured and coherent way within its own system. For divination, I prefer to use omens occurring in the world at large.

9. The mind is as space, embracing all. I am beyond mind. In reality, mind has no independent existence. 10. How can it be said that the Self is manifest? How can it be said that the Self is limited? I alone am existence; all this objective world am I. More subtle than space itself am I. 11. Know the Self to be Infinite consciousness, self-evident, beyond destruction, enlightening all bodies equally, ever shining. In It is neither day nor night. 12. Know the Self to be one, ever the same, changeless. How can you say: "I am the meditator, and this is the object of meditation?" How can perfection be divided? 13. You, Self, were never born, nor did you ever die. The body was never yours. The ancient scriptures have repeatedly affirmed: "This is all Brahman." 14. You are all the Absolute Reality, free from all change, the same within and without, Absolute bliss. Run not to and fro like a ghost. 15. Neither unity nor separation exist in you nor in me. All is Self alone. 'I' and 'you' and the 'world' have no real being. - Avadhuta Gita

Nice imagery. I see "something" at a right angle to "nothing".. separated by "directly" "present" "reality".

a tethered balloon because its lighter than air we must hold it close

I just thought we were looking for more semi-naked women.

I read his autobiography once, sounds like an interesting fellow. However, he often comes across as being caught up in the competitive spirit of "the one true method", and regarding the vedantic approach as superior. Im not sure if he would say that outright, but he certainly makes statements that imply this. As such its only reasonable to expect such a perspective from such a teacher of vedanta, as that path is directly based on a dialectic methodology, and very specific classifications of ideas and conceptual arguments. It is directly hinged on intellectual efforts. However, not all paths follow this approach. I personally choose to balance between aspects, which requires us not to specifically focus on any one faculty alone (intellect, instinct, emotion) at the expense of another. They all have their strengths and weaknesses - and it is quite possible to become slanted and lopsided in terms of self-cultivation when focusing on one aspect to the exclusion of others. You can certainly produce results with lopsided, even obsessive methodologies - however they are not the results I am looking for. The intellect has the power of abstraction, it can live for the future, plan ahead - whereas the body and emotions are not able to do this alone, as they live purely in the moment. But that abstraction can easily become a substitute for physical reality, which is where the problems begin. It is often easier for modern people to approach these things intellectually at first, because our modern world is built from a perspective which favors symbolic abstraction above all else. Anyone who has broken through the "star gate" will understand why intellectual reasoning alone is not sufficient. Swartz is not a teacher of energetic methods, and as such his methods are useful only to a point, where energetic methods are not required. He seems to have strangely polarized views on this, simultaneously disdaining it in his own teachings and yet praising examples of it from his own teachers in his personal stories. Draw from that what you will.

decriminalized under laws unto themselves axis and allies

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tag/lists

Bodhi (Sanskrit: बोधि; and Pali) in Buddhism is the understanding possessed by a Buddha regarding the nature of things. It is traditionally translated into English with the word enlightenment and literally means awakened. Bodhi is an abstract noun formed from the verbal root budh (to awake, become aware, notice, know or understand) corresponding to the verbs bujjhati (Pāli) and bodhati or budhyate (Sanskrit). Also from the same root are the Sanskrit words bodha (also meaning knowledge or intelligence) and buddhi which is the exact equivalent to the Greek word nous. Prajñā (Sanskrit: प्रज्ञा) or paññā (Pāli) in Buddhism is wisdom, understanding, discernment, insight, or cognitive acuity. It is one of three divisions of the Noble Eightfold Path. Such wisdom is understood to exist in the universal flux of being and can be intuitively experienced through meditation. In some sects of Buddhism, it is especially the wisdom that is based on the direct realization of such things as the four noble truths, impermanence, interdependent origination, non-self and emptiness. Prajñā is the wisdom that is able to extinguish afflictions (kleśas) and bring about enlightenment. jñā can be translated as "consciousness", "knowledge", or "understanding."[1] Pra is an intensifier which could be translated as "higher", "greater", "supreme" or "premium",[2] or "being born or springing up",[3] referring to a spontaneous type of knowing. Jnana or gnana or gnaan (Sanskrit; Pali: jñāna) is a Sanskrit word that means knowledge. It has various nuances of meaning depending on the context, and is used in a number of different Indian religions. The idea of jnana centers around a cognitive event which is recognized when experienced.[1] It is knowledge inseparable from the total experience of reality, especially a total reality,[1] or supreme being within Mahesha-dhama (and/or material world) such as Siva-Sakti.[2] Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (in the nominative case γνῶσις f.). In Christian, Islamic, or Jewish mysticism, mystery religions and Gnosticism gnosis generally signifies a spiritual knowledge or "religion of knowledge", in the sense of mystical enlightenment or "insight". Gnosis taught a deliverance of man from the constraints of earthly existence through insight into an essential relationship, as soul or spirit, with a supramundane place of freedom.