Creation

Awesome. I've been using a Frolov device (and my own makeshift methods) to provide resistance to my exhalations, now I have something to provide resistance to my inhalations.

I have begun to suspect that the dating scene for 20 somethings trying to date 20 somethings is dramatically different now it was for those who are now in there 40s. Attitudes toward sex, marriage, and gender roles are have shifted massively in the past 20 years. I could say a whole lot more, but for now I'll just say I that generation gap is a big cause of misunderstanding in this thread.

So he should write a complete stranger asking about some tidbit of gossip someone hinted at on an internet forum? Come on man, if you have an opinion about TWR's teaching you want to share just come out and say it. If it does not seem prudent to you to say it directly, is it really better to be indirect about it?

This is really great, to have a description of these things from a Christian standpoint. It's interesting that she doesn't see this in Hinduism. Vedantins definitiely distinguishes the two stages she describes. A Hindu Yogin might speak of first entering savikalpa samadhi (ecstatic union with the supreme) and then nirvikalpa samadhi (extinction of the sense that there is one thing uniting with another), or first experiencing the pure witness conscsiouness, and then the collapes of the witness into non dual consciousness (much like her soap bubble popping analogy). They definitely think this is the same as Buddha's "No-Self" because there is no longer any sense of anything that could be called a personal self. Taoists also have something analogous to these two stages, but characteristically phrased in terms of energy body development / internal alchemy progress. The difference between the two kinds of non-dual realization, on the other hand, is something you almost never hear about, as mentioned in the other thread.

While you were posting this, I was reading this: http://books.google.com/books?id=r_kHcG0tspgC&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false She quotes T.R.V. Murti as saying "A distinction must ... be made between the advaya of the Madyamika and the advaita of the Vedanta although in the end it may turn out to be one of emphasis or approach. Advaya is knowledge free from the duality of the extremes (antas or drstis) of 'Is' and 'Is not', Being and Becoming etc. It is knowledge freed of conceptual distinctions. Advaita is knowledge of a differenceless entity -- Brahman (pure being) ..." And comments: "As noted in the above discussion, there is, however, a crucial difference: the 'essence' or ontology that the Advaitin and the Buddhist are referring to. The Advaitin 'essence' is the all-pervading universal substratum of brahman: permanent, unchanging, and indivisible. The Buddhist, on the other hand, is referring to the 'essenceless' essence of no substantializing ontology." The question of whether these different viewpoints actually lead to different realizations is a whole other issue. I have never seen a dialectical argument answer this question to my satisfaction. Only the descriptions of the experiences of people who have experienced both and found them different convinced me that they are indeed different. It's one of those "extraordinary in the three worlds and the three times" things about this time and place that anyone with an internet connection can find such things without leaving their own home. That, and Dzogchen webcasts, and other similar things.

As to the original article, I am aghast at such sloppy science reporting. Good riddance. What those scientists did was create a macroscopic quantum superposition. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics, whenever a superposition is collapsed by measurement, all possible outcomes of the measurement "exist" as parallel universes. The reasoning is as follows: When a measurement of a superposition occurs, the combined wave function of the measured object and measuring apparatus splits into non-interacting branches. If you take the wave function of the entire universe as the one and only thing with ontological reality in quantum theory (that is the interpretation part), this means that "reality" is a constantly branching universal wave function, and the things in one branch will not be aware of the existence of other branches (until they discover quantum mechanics and interpret it in this way and infer the existence of other branches, I suppose). But that is merely one way to interpret the meaning of quantum mechanics. It does have a certain naturalness to it, but that is because of how I framed it. Basically, with interpretations of quantum mechanics you get out what you put in, i.e. philosophical assumptions etc. Those who come the interpretation of quantum mechanics with other ideas about what they are looking for will think this interpretations is totally crazy. Now, for all the popular science enthusiasts out there, this idea of parallel universes is completely different that the "brane world" hypothesis that you see connected with string theory. There are many ways for there to be many worlds. More to the point regarding the article, none of this has a single bit to do with time travel.

Zhongyongdaoist, I don't see anything acausal about Fermat's principle. The calculus of variations shows that given a function assigning numbers to paths that is given by an integral of a function of the path's positions and tangents, extremal values of this function will occur at paths satisfying a second order differential equation. When solving a second order differential equation, you can give an initial position and velocity and evolve forward in time, a final position and velocity and evolve backward in time, or initial and final position and find the solution path connecting them. The math doesn't choose one or the other. We normally think of physics predicting future from past, but that is because the apparent arrow of time makes that the most useful for our purposes. It is not a violation of causality to interpolate the path between initial and final positions, or to retrodict past from present. In the case of Fermat's principle, you already know the initial and final "position" of the light (the thing you are seeing and your eye) and want to find the path. The light ray didn't "know" to take this path to your eye when it bounced off the object you are seeing, it just happened to be the ray that bounced off the object in the right way that the path it followed took it to your eye.

There doesn't seem to be nearly as much information about Chinese Buddhism floating around the internet as there is about Theravada, Japanese, and Tibetan Buddhism. So I was pleased to find this nice short survey of the history of Buddhism in China, up through the founding of Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey There is a lot of great stuff about the early interaction of Buddhism and Taoism, the influence of The Awakening of Faith, and Chinese Madhyamaka, which I didn't even know existed. It is very brief indeed (e.g. no mention of Faxian, Yijing, or Paramartha, very little mention of Pure Land), but it does as well as a 13 page survey can. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

It's funny you say that, because what I thought was really powerful about the interview in the OP was that he refused to play by the rules, which is to say, he refused to be sucked in to the paradigms and thought structures that typically govern political discourse, even in dialog with someone completely steeped in those paradigms and thought structures.

I certainly understand the benefit to be had of strenghtneing the pelvic floor and connective tissue of the torso that comes from this type of weight training, but I wonder, why is 100kg your benchmark for a decent weight? What would that much weight accomplish for you? I have never cared to build strength or muscle mass for it's own sake is. Maybe that's a personality thing.

I saw this video on facebook. I was surprised at how much I agree with Brand, and happy to see someone saying these things in the public sphere. I myself have never voted for much the same reason as Brand, and I get the same reaction from people that Brand is getting, so good for him for standing up for this point of view. The message he is giving must be understood for what it is: a negative reaction, pointing out what is wrong with the system. This includes the system's inability to change itself through the means that it allows for, ie. voting for different leadership. Almost ever time he is asked "How should it be" he says "Here is how it shouldn't be". It is common to think a lack of constructive insight negate the message, but I think it should just be accepted for what it is: taking a stand for what you don't want and don't believe in, so you won't be duped into believing in yet another half-assed stop-gap solution. Bravo, Mr. Brand. But there must be the other half of the equation or there will just be mindless destruction, and a vacuum filled with something different but not necessarily better (French Revolution, etc), as thelerner pointed out. What is the other half? This is key. It is not by having some grand plan for a utopia, as some critics call for. That will never work. It is by people focusing on being the change they want to see and raising their own consciousness, even in small ways. Then they can become a powerful force for good, and positive developments will naturally occur when the time is right. But the danger in what Brand is doing is people glorifying him in his role as agitator and destroyer, and thinking that is how they should be and what they want in a leader. If people sink in to cynicism and self-satisfaction with their "seeing through the lies" and wish for destruction, when change finally comes it will be an expression of or a reaction to that negativity, rather than conscious and positive. If people do not keep in mind that destruction is a means and a first step, they won't get the positive change they initially wanted. Excellent post!

Well, I know she doesn't go in to detail about the practices in order to honor the traditional way of receiving empowerments, keeping vows of secrecy, etc. It's definitely more a "Hmm isn't this interesting" book than a "Here's how to practice" book. Also, it is based on her PhD thesis (in anthropology, if I recall correctly), so it has that academic quality to it that not everyone likes.

No, just a bit on google books. I mentioned it because it is the only source I know of for a non-male-centric perspective on Vajrayana sexual practices. It's on my "to-read" list, but not high on the list. What did you think of it?

Something fishy is happening in this thread...

http://www.amazon.com/Passionate-Enlightenment-Miranda-Shaw/dp/0691010900

Not the Council of Nicea in 325. Emperor Justinian in 545. And he didn't change the Bible, but enforced one particular interpretation, seeing as the Bible doesn't explicitly say one way or another. Even Sweedenborg, who had visions of Christ explaining the afterlife to him, didn't teach reincarnation. An example of a Biblical argument against reincarnation comes from Hebrews 9:27 "it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment". But all well researched Western accounts of reincarnation that I have seen state that after death there is a lengthy process of existing on the other side, beginning with a life review stage aka the judgement, before (potentially, if needed) coming back. This is consistent with the Bible as far I am concerned. Anyway, regarding the original article, if the Gospel accounts are fictional it certainly was not Romans who composed them. --- h.uriahr, Your posts bring up the very interesting question of, "To what extent can personal mystical experience validate an entire worldview?" I have noticed your recent posts carry all the signs of an Evangelical worldview (things along the lines of the Bible is the only scripture that anyone ever needs, Satan is deceiving the world into not seeing the truth of Christianity, America has been overrun by the godless, other religions are inspired by demons, etc.) or something very close to it. I can't help but notice that Tibetan_Ice, for example, does not hold such a worldview even though he also has had personal experience of Christ and the Holy Spirit...

alwayson, Would it be possible for you to allow people to discuss jhanas in a thread called "Jhanas" without chiming in that some other practice which you have never practiced, and don't even know how to practice, and only recently became interested in is superior to cultivation of jhanas, thus derailing the whole thread?

"So many of us in the Nyingma tradition place great emphasis on the Dzogchen tradition and its effortlessness. Often we make the mistake of just paying lip service to effortlessness, while really just being kind of lazy. Look at someone like Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. No-one would question that his realisation was higher than anyone’s, and yet day and night he would recite prayers and mantras and do his practice. And he was inseparable from Vimalamitra! Look at the kind of effort that he put into his practice. Then there are others who just don’t do very much of that at all. They just sit there with their mouths open. On one occasion, I asked Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, 'Is it necessary for someone with realization to recite prayers and mantras?' And he replied, 'Someone who has that kind of realisation is like space. What harm could recitation possibly do to space?' And he continued, 'To recite even a single mani mantra, or to recite the Vajra Guru mantra a few times, is only going to help. It’s not going to hurt, is it?'" -Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche

Yay! I've wanted to hear Michael on this show for years.

Thanks.

Hmmm, access concentration is a term unique to Theravada commentaries, and the nine stages culminating in "attaining shamatha" is found in the work of Asanga, so presumably originates in the Sarvastivada.

I remember Alan Wallace citing the Visuddhimagga saying that if you can't stay in first dhyana for 24 hours you haven't really attained it. What do you mean "access to it"?

Because blabbing about Dzogchen on the internet is something I want to be very very careful about. Thanks for asking though I'll try to make a post that I'll be comfortable leaving up. I am curious about the progression taught to Dzogchenpas by teachers other than Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (C T I have you in mind here especially). Tantric prelims? 2-Stage Higher Tantra practice? Dzogchen/Mahamudra methods of Shamatha/Vipashyana? Dzogchen mennagde prelims (rushens, semdizins, etc.)? And Apech, would you elaborate on why you are baffled that Namkhai Norbu teaches in the way he does? I know it's not the traditional way, but what other reasons do you have in mind?

nvm

[an exercise in non-attachment to my own posts]