doc benway

Well said, silent thunder.

I am very happy to see money, time, and effort being invested in physics research. To me it is not at all a waste. There are so very many benefits, some tangible, some less so... There is little that I find more exciting and exotic than breakthroughs in physics, especially when it challenges existing ideas and leads us in new, unexpected directions. It's equally compelling to see the consistency of views emerge as cutting edge physics and ancient spiritual traditions converge. Like liminal_luke, I was a bit of a science addict as a kid - physics and anatomy mostly. I'll never forget how excited I was to read an article in Scientific American about Bell's Theorem and Asimov's book, The Human Brain.

Sorry to hear she passed at such a young age. She was a nice voice here. She will be missed. Thank you for sharing that obituary.

Else

Mad Dog

It's nice if we can get to the point where we can look at those empty boats we bump into as our teachers and guides, rather than obstacles and enemies. I love how Pema puts it - "rest in that little gap." It's so difficult to find that space when someone pulls out in front of us causing us to slam on our brakes to avoid a collision. It happened to me this morning. I found the space, but only after hitting the horn and yelling, what the fuck!?

I'm also a concrete thinker and adding the electronic medium to the mix creates the perfect storm for me...

Rijksmuseum

In my view, karma transcends and is independent of faith or assistance. That very attempt to intervene will simply add to the cycle of action and consequence. Karma has no resolution, it is ongoing. It is simply human judgement which perceives injustice and desires resolution. I think when you ask the question "do you have faith in karma or does it need help in getting its job done?" what you are really asking is "do you believe that somehow there is a law or entity that leads to things working out to meet your expectations and, if not, do you tend to take matters into your own hands?" That is not karma, that is desire and aversion; said in another way, it is ignorance. No offense intended. This is perhaps the most common misinterpretation of karma and amounts to a projection of human values and expectations onto observed, unbiased action and consequences. Karma is more in line with the Daoist principle discussed in a recent thread regarding the Dao and sage treating all beings as straw dogs.

Tigle

I also felt a visceral impact when first reading this quote. "... but as soon as soon as the consciousness enters the mixed cell, that cell now belongs to the consciousness." I can't even yet put into words why but the utter truth of this statement reverberates in me. Our body, our world, our thoughts... everything we identify with is so clearly not "ours" for there is nothing we can find that can be said to be "me." And yet how can one really say that anything is not me? Just as I am not this and that, here I am in communion with the experience of everything I encounter so how could "I" be anything else? Words fail me and yet that fundamental paradox of being and not being seems to be captured in this elegant passage.

"During conception, even the physical substance on which the self is conventionally based - the egg and sperm - belong to someone else, the parents; still you can say that it belongs to the self also. The body comes from someone else, but as soon as the consciousness enters, it's that new person's body, embryo, fetus, or whatever you want to call it, even though prior to that it wasn't. So the physical constituents of the embryo come from two different people; but as soon as the consciousness enters the mixed cell, that cell now belongs to the consciousness." - His Holiness the Dalai Lama

But the Pastafarians play better music in temple...

I don't mean to answer for Kar3n, she may have a different response but I'd like to offer a response to this. First, if you haven't received empowerment or preparation, you probably would be better off not using the iconography of that particular lineage or tradition. While you can certainly use any image you want, the benefits of understanding the specific details of the visualization and practice will simply not be there. You may as well visualize the Flying Spaghetti Monster. When you approach these "beings" as a part of yourself, there is nothing else they can be other than an aspect of yourself. To look at them as wanting something in return is not to see them from a non-dual perspective. When doing something for oneself, who is there to want something in return? In your example, Jesus and Satan are projections or constructs which represent different aspects of oneself. There is no need to distinguish them. You look beyond the representation, beyond the image or archetype, and actually look directly at yourself. Working with these "beings" is a way of working with and on oneself. They are a tool or a method, not something other than ourselves. Reifying them through attribution (what do they want, what if they're angry, what if they're tricking me?), is a distraction from the real work. Sure, we can trick ourselves and fool ourselves and make a mess of things internally but when working with these "beings" from a non-dual perspective it is important not to allow them to become just another layer of confusion and complexity. Ideally, they become a vehicle to transcend that and see more clearly. Not sure if that's helpful but I thought I'd offer that perspective.

energy!

No, it doesn't - that's sort of the point...

I agree with Kar3n's approach which is essentially the Bon/Buddhist view I do think it's important to acknowledge, however, that there are traditions which reify these 'subtle beings and spirits' (as do the "lesser" vehicles in Bon) and yet manage to work with them in very skillful and effective ways. We especially see this in indigenous groups where the majority of folks may not be sophisticated enough to see the non-dual aspect but still manage to achieve their objectives working with these things in a dualistic manner.

New York has lots of great options! William CC Chen is top notch - http://williamccchen.com/ I've competed with his students and their pushing hands skill is high level. Bill Phillips is a student of Chen Man Ching and is an excellent teacher. I've trained and competed with his students as well and studied with Bill in workshops. Very high level of training - http://www.patiencetaichi.com/ Alex Dong has excellent credentials but I can't speak for him personally - http://alexdongtaichi.com/ Master Yu Go Shun has an excellent reputation but I also can't speak for him personally - http://www.meetup.com/The-New-York-Chen-Tai-Chi-Chuan-Meetup-Group/ Here is a nice list to peruse - http://martialartsnewyork.org/types/internal/

Several months ago I participated in an online workshop called Awakening the Sacred Arts. It was a wonderful experience that utilized dzogchen meditation methods to unlock creative potential. Each participant was encouraged to work on a project in any artistic discipline. It was wonderful to see, read, and hear some of the projects and even more surprising to see what came out of me! The same workshop will be offered again this summer if anyone is interested.

Wonderful! Thanks CT

I would use the word perspective as opposed to choice with respect to happiness. Not saying I am right and Bud is wrong, just my personal experience and... well, perspective. One needs to first have an insight into that perspective and the freedom associated with it before the choice can be made. Many folks are so deeply wrapped up in the illusion that they really have no choice, and do not have the necessary perspective.

Jada

Fifty-something

Since I can't like this post more than once, I will quote it. _/\_

For sure compassion and suffering are relative things. Demello speaks wisely to this when he talks about his struggle with his role as a spiritual guide vs psychologist. As psychologist, his role is to ease pain. As a spiritual guide, it is to facilitate transformation and growth which means allowing the pain to persist and deepen. Sometimes this leads to opposing choices. Which is more compassionate? I think that to be truly effective, these actions need to come from some place deeper than intellect. Compassionate acts based on teachings and reason only go so far.They are like practice or simulations of the real thing. They may be insincere and fragile and may not, in fact, transform the practitioner. They may even evoke bitterness and resentment. Monastics are not inherently special, many would probably fare better outside the monastery. And the greatest act of compassion in many ways is simply to give things and people (and ourselves!) space, just as you allude to in your earlier post. When that space is there, what needs to happen will happen. If an action is needed, it will take place - provided we are open enough and connected enough to know when we need to act. Ever notice how when something is really needed, it is effortless. Almost as if it does itself. The love that is needed to feed someone else when you are starving or to sacrifice oneself to save another does exist - one needs only to look at the love of a mother for her child, or a soldier saving his comrades from a grenade. The ideal you refer to is that of truly feeling, in our bones, towards other people as if they were our own child, as if they were ourselves. It is there if we are open and sensitive enough to feel it. It's rare to get a glimpse of that but if we get that glimpse, that's where true transformation takes place.