Bruce

It's up to you to decide mate. If it checks out for you in the end, let us know.

Going back to the original question: Are repeatable spiritual paths a myth? The more I think about it the more I would be inclined to say that, yes repeatable spiritual paths are a myth. Why? The word repeatable would, to me, infer that everyone who follows the path, to the letter, would experience the advertised fruit of the path. Not one of us could say that everyone who follows the Buddhist path or the Vedic path or the Barton path or whatever becomes enlightened, at least in one lifetime, and this lifetime is the only one we can know. We can argue this to death. It seems to me that a lot of the responses to this thread have been given in the definite sense. Some quite fundamentalist. We can have faith in our chosen path, but we all base that faith on something we can't really know for sure. We believe that some people who have followed said path have become enlightened, because it was written down somewhere in the distant past, or even the present. Nothing wrong with faith, but I think we should be critical in our thinking about where our faith comes from, and accept it as just that. Faith. It's all speculation really. Maybe educated speculation, but speculation none the less. I think I need more coffee now.

Of course you are correct, from a non-dualism standpoint. That would've been the clever answer, as you said. From a philosophical language perspective though, it can't be explained without first putting it in dualistic terms, in order to set the stage for the non-dualistic teaching.

Are you refering to maya as illusion, ie the opposite of the absolute? If so, I think that opposites have to exist in the language of any religious philosophy. Maybe I misunderstood the question totally.

Quite a few years ago I had a qigong instruction tape, by I've no idea who. He recommended always rubbing the body lightly and vigorously all over - something about surface qi I think. That was finished off with a circular rubbing of the dantien area with one hand while placing the other had on the lumbar region of the back. I know this is a crap technical explaination, but I can't remember much. The thing is I've done this ever since when I finish meditation. It's just part of my routine now.

I can't ascribe to the religion of Christianity at all. I've tried, in many ways. It was how I was raised, but it seems to me impossible to call yourself a Christian unless you accept a ton of mythology that goes along with it on blind faith. I just can't do it. I am, admittedly, jaded. As for Jesus, himself, I can accept that he was probably a Boddhisattva, in Buddhist terms. My understanding is that there were a lot of people vying for the title of "Messiah" at the time. He happened to win out.

Probably the book "Wherever You Go There You Are" by John Kabat Zenn. At the time I just wanted to learn to meditate in order to relax. That book got me interested in studying Buddhism, and of course meditation became about much more than just chillin' out.

What a great question! While I'm interested in qi cultivation for health reasons, my practice is decidedly Buddhist whether I want to call it that or not. Really interested to read the responses to this!

I do think that talking about your experience is helpful, but you should be careful about who you share it with. A while back, during a time of intense Shikantaza practice, I had what seemed to me an experience of non-duality. There was no longer a strong sense of me. It was just being. Total peace. When I got up I expected it to end, but it didn't. It lasted nearly 24 hours. I think I had a goofy grin on my face the entire time. Maybe a week later, I spoke to my teacher about it. I found the experience very difficult to verbalize, and still do. Non-duality is just language. I think I said "oneness" at the time. I don't know. Anyway, he told me that it sounded like I had a real experience. Maybe a glimpse, but that was it. Just a glimpse. He said something like, that's good. Now forget it. He then told me not to try to recreate it. Not to get caught up in it. Just sit as usual. Don't look for anything. Don't try to accomplish anything. Just sit. If it happens again, it does. If it doesn't it doesn't. I think the danger of sharing this stuff is in having false expectations reinforced by others who may be genuinely excited for you, but their excitement isn't based on wisdom.

I think you kinda answered your own question. Experiences are just experiences. Let them go and move on. If you have a true realization, you'll know it.

The spiritual traditions seem to me to have a similar thread when it comes to path; namely purification, faith, contemplation, and concentration. Purification may be mind and body or just mind, but a mind filled with hate, guilt, fear, lust, etc isn't a receptive vessel. Faith seems all important in this question. If you don't have faith in the path, or the method how could any of them possibly work? How about faith in yourself? What are the questions you're trying to answer? Who am I? Where do I come from? Where am I going? Why is my life shit? What is the Ultimate? All questions for contemplation, but not just an idle thinking about. Does the path you have chosen address the questions you have? Concentration, either through meditation or prayer or both seem central to all spiritual paths. So does living mindfully. An uncluttered mind is obviously more receptive. No matter the label one puts on the path or what new guru dude is teaching it, you have to live it. I think that's where most fail. Anyone can learn to sit on their ass and concentrate for an hour a day. What about the other 23 hours? I can honestly say that's where I fail, but I'm trying.

Like you said, it would be pretty hard to function in society without having opinions. I've never had a teacher who didn't have opinions. You can still have opinions without being attached to them.

Very true. New Age probably covers a lot of territory anyway, from the slackening up on fundamentalism to the out right wierd. In my mind, anything that gets people to look inside rather than just blind belief in religous dogmas is a step in the right direction. I get the impression, though, that a lot of these new agers are just looking for a feel good religion, or some guru to wipe their spiritual nose for them.

Truely awesome videos guys! Deep bows to all.

I thought this snipit of a teaching from the late Ch'an master Shing-yen pertinent: Practice is not like trying to clear thoughts from your mind and vexations from your life as if they were dust on a mirror. You cannot wipe the dust away and make yourself enlightened. It is not like that. Whether you use the methods of the Lin-chi or Tsao-tung sects within the Ch'an tradition, once enlightened, you realize that enlightenment has nothing to do with the practice that brought you there. So why bother to practice? Practice is like a bridge that can lead to enlightenment, even though enlightenment has nothing to do with practice.

LOL, yeah it's certainly not an original thought. It just struck me how many times I've really lost through winning, especially when I "won" with the wrong frame of mind. Despite "winning" I was left with a sense of un-ease, often guilt. By the same token, by "loosing" I've felt victory through better relationships, or that I somehow knew I had done the best thing.

Yep.

Quite possibly, my friend. The notion would seem consistent with the sudden enlightenment school of Ch'an, the idea being that we're all Buddhas and only have to realize it. In the stories of the Patriarchs of Ch'an/Zen, not all of them had their realizations only after sitting in the lotus position on a mountain for 3 years. Some only had to hear a snipit of a sutra before they "got it". Maybe some are just "nearly there" to start with, so no matter the method or non-method, they had the purity of mind to see deeply that may take others a lifetime or lifetimes to achieve. The goal of enlightenment is often seen as an obstacle anyway. Just an edit: I wouldn't say that repeatable paths are a myth, but maybe in some cases unnecessary.

Yep. What matters is how you position your mind. Hope you feel better soon.

bmp? I had no idea what btt was either! For some reason I was thinking about this thread when I went to bed last night. What came to mind was: there's winning in loosing and loosing in winning. Conflict is one of those cases where it's pretty easy to see the non-duality.

Not trying to sound Taoist here, but sometimes yielding really is the best approach. Ask yourself why you have to win. That's kinda like the old saying: "you have to pick your battles". Try hanging out with a toddler all the time. Sometimes it really is best to let them have their way for awhile. They'll forget about it all in 5 or 10 minutes anyway. Adults, of course, are a bit different, but I think that "picking your battles" still applies. I spent a lot of years in a very large organization leading projects that depended on the approval of several other inter-organizational groups. I learned very quickly about picking my battles. Even if I could easily win, it was often better to yield. In the long run yielding might mean a good future working relationship, but had I gone for the jugular that would've been the end of that relationship forever, and your actions always come back on you. That's karma at work in the work-place! Seek to understand, then to be understood. Listen and really hear. That's what I tried to live by at work.

How do I study? Often by researching a topic to death, lol. I used to have a bookcase full of texts from the major schools of Buddhism, a few of the classics from Hinduism, some stuff from Christianity, a translation of the Tao Te Ching (of course ), a bunch of books on Tai Chi and Qigong, and a few general religious studies books. I had read most from cover to cover more than once. A few were quite difficult, like Book 1 of the Shobogenzo. That was before really getting into research on the internet, but I did love having the books. When we moved back to the UK, most were given away. It just cost too much to ship them. I've replaced only a few, and now pretty much rely on the internet when I want to research something. I guess my technical approach is still to go to the root text (or as close as one can get through translation), read it for my own understanding, then read commentaries by those I feel are reliable. Then I'll go back and read the original text again. Usually, I get a lot more out of it the second time, and find areas that I totally misunderstood the meaning of.

In a nutshell, I agree.

The answer isn't really any different than in my last post. Zen is concerned about right here, right now. Take care of now. Take care of this life. Follow the precepts, not because you're afraid of the judgement of a supreme being or even karma, but because doing so will make your life better, others lives better, and will maintain the proper mental state for practice. Then practice. Arguing about concepts we can't prove is pointless, but living by the precepts and practicing isn't pointless. At the very least you'll live a better life for it. I highly disagree about shooting yourself in the head.