sean

Two Aries, and also a Four and an Eight. As is probably obvious, this is just the tip of a private conflict between Lozen and I that unfortunately spilled out into the forum. At root it's probably as silly and petty as most arguments. Sean.

Hey, I'd like to hijack this thread temporarily as an opportunity to really clarify what we mean by "emptiness meditation". We throw the term around a lot but it's ill-defined IMO. Actually I tend to stay away from the term altogether because I think it's just too vague. To me it sounds like saying "God meditation" or "breath meditation". It leaves me wondering about specifics. So when you say emptiness meditation: 1) Do you mean a meditation aimed at cultivation the perception of all phenomena as inherently empty? If so, how is it different than Vipassana contemplation on impermanence and why ignore the rest of the progression, ie: unsatisfactoriness, non-self, loving-kindness, etc. 2) Do you mean a meditation aimed at dissolving forms into emptiness? If so how does this contrast to exploring, creating and refining forms? 3) Do you mean a meditation that requires a specific posture? ie: Lotus or Burmese. If so why can't emptiness meditation be practiced in another posture? 4) Do you mean a meditation that requires physical stillness? If so, why can't emptiness meditation be practiced while in movement? 5) Do you mean a meditation that require abandoning structure and language completely? If so, why can't emptiness meditation be practiced as the ground upon which visualizations appear to arise by the will of a self? Also I think all forms of meditation are directed in some way, at least by intention and at least initially. Even shikantaza is directed by the skillful desire for enlightenment and also by the structure and discipline of an imposed physical posture. In other words shikantaza (the authentic Zen term for real emptiness meditation btw) is directed primarily by body language. So in this way it has more in common with Yoga and Chi Kung (see Michael Winn's article "Daoist Alchemy as a Deep Language for Communicating with Nature") then it does with meditations driven primarily by the language of sound, ie: Mantra, the language of imagery and Art, ie: mandalas, thangkas, visualizations, the written/spoken human languages, ie: sedona, focusing, and advaita methods of verbal self inquiry. Also, claiming that your technique is no-technique just amounts to ignoring the assumptions of your approach IMO. Which could be useful, who knows. Me, I generally try to resolve duality (which of course creates duality, in a sense, since seeking anything presupposes separation exists. This is another tangent though). So I see "emptiness" as not being intrinsically different than anything else realy, ie: cooking rice and washing my bowl. Within the context of Buddhism for example, it's claimed that the Buddha said "Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form" in the Heart Sutra. So if the two are really in identity, isn't it just as true to say we are already intrinsically empty, let's work on a "form" meditation? Resolving emptiness into form. Winn seems to prefer this view. Let's actualize and become and not just dissolve away. "The spiritual path consists of two aspects: seeing beyond the limited self and refining the limited self" (Shinzen Young). This radical monism can lead to disillusionment with, and abandoning of the path in some temperaments though ("If samsara is enlightenment, why even practice? I'm just gonna get drunk!"). So this view is usually discouraged, especially without the consistent presence of a teacher. Anyway, I say: Let me sit, stand, move, live and die while experiencing the pulsation and stillness of all phenomena across the entire spectrum from emptiness to form to emptiness and back along with the other 10,000 dualities arising within Being all while I Am remaining One in Self without grasping or averting even in the presence of grapsing and averting. Let sitting, standing, moving, living and dying arise without grasping or averting even in the presence of grapsing and averting and all while the pulsation of wild mundane stillness dances across the spectrum from emptiness to form to emptiness and back along with the 10,000 heavy dualities floating weightlessly in Being while I Am One in Self Singing In Love. In the absence of grasping and averting, even in the presence of grasping and averting, sitting, standing, moving, silence, song, living, dying, emptiness, form, meditation, eating, shitting, fucking, good, evil, love, hate, Tao, Buddha, Christ, Alla, Krishna, Love, Freedom, slavery, happiness, boredom, pain, sushi, sex, tears, blood, men, women, transsexuals, being broke the whole weekend, being rich the rest of your life, laughter, sadness, and all 10,000 x 10,000 real empty forms floating weightlessly in Being arising within pulsating wild mundane stillness dancing to the most beautiful song always playing I Am The One Self Singing And In Love Right Here Now. Stop grasping or averting, even while grasping and averting, just Be the sitting, standing, moving, sleeping, typing, singing, dancing, dying, crying, eating, shitting, fucking, feeling guilty, tired, ashamed, clever, stupid, happy, shy, anxious, angry, free, stuck, open, closed, bored, numb, smoking, quitting smoking (for good), reading, drinking, sungazing, yoga, work, surfing, writing, arguing, eating sushi, eating burgers, stretching, being broke, being rich, realizing your poetry is cliche and that you've been going through a lot lately so going back to sit and meditate. Sean.

Welcome to The Tao Bums, Mike. It's cool to hear you are practicing Fusion. I don't hear a whole lot about Fusion and it always struck me as curious. Someone recently told me that Ron Diana, a few months before he died, told him that very few if any master Fusion. Everyone wants to skim through it. But it seems like we could all use the emotional balance and integration it promises, I look forward to hearing more about your experiences with it ... Cheers, Sean.

Please refer to the concept of "burden of proof". I am not trying to assert or prove anything therefore "ad hominem" could not be more misplaced.

Michael, since learning and regularly practicing the Sedona Method over the last several years, any of the various stillness meditations, ie: sitting, corpse, standing, etc. bring me into at least a taste of bliss within 10-15 minutes. But then I think it may just be bliss in comparison to my usual state which I'm realizing more and more is filled with high levels of anxiety and tension, whereas you seem super laid back. So maybe it's like I am wearing shoes two sizes too small 90% of the time and when I take them off in medtiation the relief from the pain feels like bliss whereas you are wearing shoes that fit decently so taking off your shoes doesn't feel so obviously pleasurable and refreshing.

Lozen, it's been fun. In truth I don't actually have strong feelings about science. Like I've said repeatedly, it's just data and tools that I find useful. I also don't put any "faith" in science nor have I ever claimed that science has any power to determine what is true in any absolute sense. So I am under no burdens to prove anything and am not trying to. You, on the other hand, have made sweeping claims that science and Buddhism are bullshit. While most mature adults would just ignore your statements, seeing them as the obvious clamoring for attention they are, I, the idiot with too too much free time (apparently), decided, mostly out of sheer boredom, to call you out on your bullshit. And you've done an excellent job of showing that you can't produce any evidence (let alone the "tons" as you claimed) to support your over the top assertions. So I am only left with further validation of my original intuition that much of what you say and do is more in the spirit of shocking, irritating and "testing" people than it is about actually engaging in intelligent dialogue. Reap what you sow. I will bow out of this "debate" now. Sean.

I hear you, that is annoying. I guess I have always been my own best guinea pig and also not interested in making big claims within the mainstream American scientific community so I don't really care that much about "proof" which I think it basically impossible anyway. Ahhh... that is a great way to word that, I like that. As a filter. Yes, no filters please. Just different tools that I am free to use on the raw data of my experience. Cool point. Dude, you should see some of the shit I write. Sean.

Yeah, well what do you expect it's corporate America. But It's important to separate an analysis of human corruption from an analysis of the merits of a a philosophy itself. See: ad hominem fallacy There is a whole spectrum from hard science to soft. It's true that case studies are not as objective (as far as proof is concerned) as double blinds are. But again there are often unfortunate financial/political agendas involved preventing real research being done, ie: in the areas you are mentioning specifically. Still doesn't have anything to do with science being bullshit though. In fact it just goes right back to my original argument that you put your feelings of things (in particular your anger) over the actual facts and you do so in a sweeping and confrontational way. That science can be turned upon to analyze itself and show it's own inconsistencies is one of it's major strengths. It makes it fundamentally different than religious faith which is validated in a circular fashion, ie: Bible is right because God says so. Also it doesn't "always take years to catch up to things that people already know". Real folk wisdom is just generations of passed on observations. A lot of folk wisdom is absurd though. Also much of what we now take for granted as "common sense" is actually heavily influenced by the results of scientific validation. Anyway ... of course you have to trust yoursef and not be blindly led by authority, be that scientific or religious authority. If something is working for you keep doing it. But if you read a study that says it's working for other reasons, why close your mind? You can interpret phenomenon from dozens of different angles and you will never really know what is really going on ... is this herb working because it has bioflavanoids, because it clears and discharges Lung heat, or because it pacifies Kapha? If you care then do an interdisciplinary study. But in the meantime why argue over your head and call science bullshit, it's really silly. Ad hominem That something is based on assumptions does not make it non-scientific. In fact an awareness of your assumptions as assumptions is very scientific. Because based on the article it's my inference that this man could gain a lot from taking an "Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" course and I just don't picture him at science consortiums for some reason, no offense. Yeah, I'm not big on it either. But whatever makes people happy I guess. You've obviously never been to the South. Sean.

Hmmm... are you sure I am not going to suddenly find myself wanting to punch out hookers at the end of 100 days? Totally joking. I'm busy as fuck but I'll try to join in. Starting group studies of various texts, etc. here is a really good idea Cam.

Matt, Your points are well taken, thanks for your input. Briefly (super busy this week) there are very significant differences between Buddhism and Christianity IMO. The original core texts of Buddhism (ie: Nikaya), before the religious structure and hierarchies that you refer to were constructed around these texts, are actually a very legitimate, and in many ways, scientifically sound philosophy and method of inquiry into the nature of reality. Christianity on the other hand, being built upon dense mythology, requiring a priori faith, and having been dredged through and contaminated by centuries of political agendas has, in my view, made it almost not worth wading through outside of a tiny handful of fringe mystics. Also, science is not merely the study of the physical world. Besides being an accumulated body of knowledge, it's also a method of rational inquiry that is capable of being directed at, and analyzing/deconstructing even itself. In this way it's more of an open system than nearly every major religion. At heart science is really about weeding out the bullshit by honoring the empirical truths derived from accurate experimentation, observation, and study. Further, it's pretty much unavoidable. For example in your post you used a subset of science to present your arguments about Buddhism and Christianity, namely the science of logic, or more specifically propositional logic which is in the branch of science called philosophy. So, in my view, "the tracing back to the root that each of us must do to find the Truth / Enlightenment", as you say, is actually the most important of scientific inquiries and there is no need whatsoever to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Gotta run, Sean.

Actually no, but that's interesting that was your intention. How often is it your intention when interacting with people to piss them off? And how often do you get that gloating feeling you appear to be basking in above when you succeed? It does seem very 8ish I have to say. Huh? I think your reasoning behind how you think the research would be conducted and why it would be circular is circular. Heh. Anyway, if you are actually interested and not just just still trying to piss me off, here is a link to one study I read fairly recently: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles...elease_full.asp Ok, I'm up for the challenge Lozen. I challenge you to produce "tons" of empirical data to support just the following two little claims you've made: Buddhism is bullshit (except for Zen sort of) Science is bullshit BTW - You are kind of especially screwed with that second one considering that empiricism is at the heart of the scientific method. Sean.

I rarely go full throttle with discussing the details of my practice and beliefs with people. When I interact with others I mainly seek rapport and so I generally make a strong effort to speak their language. So I might speak to a Christian entirely in Christian terms. In fact this is how I speak with my father, entirely within the framework of Christian mythology. I think if you are creative you can find the vocabulary within anyone's belief system, even completely different or even highly secular/materialistic worldviews, to almost covertly (it feels) discuss your beliefs and interests. I guess at heart I feel that real spiritual understanding is pre-verbal. Though if I disagree with a core belief underlying someone's language/symbols, I don't pander and can even be fairly antagonistic in an unstifled debate. Sean.

Most eights I meet do too. There is a lot of evidence though that the modern Enneagram is a statistically valid form of personality analysis. IME it's at least as valid as MBTI which has a ton of empirical data behind it. But I imagine this won't sway your horse stance since you also think science (the classification of observations) is bullshit. So continue using your gut feelings as your primary form of research and we can merrily agree to disagree. Sean.

Hmmm... I can't decide, Sexual variant or Social variant .. what do you think? Oops, I already had a turn. Sean.

Thanks guys, yeah I feel a lot better about the most recent change/relaxation of the setup. As much as it made sense to me in my head the first way, my gut just couldn't rest with things being so locked down. I think this setup strikes a nice balance.

I flipped through it in a bookstore and really liked it but didn't feel like dropping the money because I am reading too many books right now. But I'm actually reading a book by her Guru right now called The Truth Is. And it's already rapidly winning a place in my top 3 spiritual books of all time list. I'll pick that book up soon and let you know what it's like and I'll be sure to give a full report on what she's like in person. Sean.

Nice to get to know more about you thaddeus. I can relate to your skepticism, I am also very skeptical and tend to pull things apart from many angles, and view it from within different perceptual positions, including a scientific one. In fact in many ways I feel the scientific framework itself is a sound position, just behind, especially in it's Western manifestation. I strongly agree with this statement. So no offense from my corner of the room if you feel prompted to more aggressively question and hold the various work discussed here to a higher order of rigor (as long as respect is maintained of course.) Ahhh... another babyface. Great to have you here, Sean.

And this is the Yoda we all know and love. It's been fun Kyle. I really enjoy being here with you. Besides your great insights you make me laugh out loud at least once a week. Sean.

Yeah, this is a big one for me too. Hey, welcome aboard Ben. Just curious, what kind of dance were you into? I've dabbled in breakdancing and also took balllet for a bit. (Don't laugh ). Sean.

Sarah Powers' approach sounds interesting. Do you think I will get a full understanding of Yin Yoga through her DVD or should I start with Paul Grilley? Looks like Sarah Powers is from San Francisco near where I live but she travels a lot. She'll be out in November though doing a class and I think I'll catch it. Thanks again for turning me on to this aspect of Yoga. Sean.

Method is an impediment to love, a postponement of freedom, and an insult to peace. Use no methods, simply identify as That. Many methods may take you to Anandamayakosha, and end at this subtlest of veils, yet there is an enjoyer of bliss. Pre-dawn light is not the Sun, bliss is not the totality of Understanding, it is the turning toward your own Face and is the direct 'practice' to know your Self. There is no attainment and no cultivation of original nature, You are Consciousness, not a farmer! Why work for that which you already are? Do not mentate, do not stir a thought, Trying to get out of superimposed bondage, which is the notion that you are separate from Existence, you will land in superimposed freedom. ---Sri H.W.L Poonja Welcome to The Tao Bums, John. Sean.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeEight.asp

No problem.