doc benway

Thanks for the reply - good stuff to think about. I have no doubt that there is more to be revealed to me! Whether or not I'll ever wade through the entire Pali cannon is another matter altogether. The two perspectives still feel a bit different to me - Silence tells me that reality simply is. No need for words. DO tells me that reality isn't, in words. I'll go with the former... Just my current perspective and experience, quite possibly skewed or erroneous. But it seems to work for me right now. If all is emptiness, there's certainly enough room for both of us.

As soon as I see one of these sorts of debates developing my eyes glaze over and I move on. I occasionally will add my perspective, FWIW. I can understand Michael's frutstration - it does seem an unnecessary and endless bickering. Some of the folks who contribute to the Buddhist bickering still have good contributions to the forum and I personally don't want to ignore them for that reason. I generally only use ignore for really unpleasant folks. I don't want to add to the mods' work or make the forum more restrictive either. I wonder if a sub-forum dedicated to deep/esoteric Buddhist philosophy and practice might be worthwhile. I agree with Vortex also - sometimes I do learn something about Buddhism for the threads but they get so deep and repetetive, it is a lot to wade through. Good luck to the admins - it ain't easy...

I do appreciate the reply and your views but must disagree. Thunderous silence is not a reality because it is not an explanation and takes no position. That is the point exactly. There is no "I" present doing any understanding or explaining. It is a way to say Reality is - there is no understanding because there is no "I" to understand or explain, it just is, leave it at that. DO is a very subtle and elegant explanation but is still constructed by, elucidated by, and is understood by the human mind. Consequently it is a concept to cling to for the mind. I do thoroughly understand your explanation and yet, from my perspective, DO is a tricksey way for the mind to say - aha, I understand but I'm not breaking the rules. But then, who is doing the understanding? As I stated before, I think DO is best looked at as a method, a tool, a prescription to diminish suffering. So we study it a bit and apply the idea in our daily lives and that's fine. Anything else that occurs incident to it is wonderful, or not, but as soon as we point to DO as an explanation for reality we are pointing, we are holding it up as something valuable for the mind to understand - something that "explains" reality, therefore, at some level, we are clinging to it and I think that violates the Buddha's intention. Buddhism is no different in this regard to the other major traditions. There are some wonderful things, many of which are the core values and principles. Then there are lots of places where the ideas are taken too far and are corrupted and exploited and deviate from the original intention. Just the views of someone who is a bit outside of Buddhism, looking in. FWIW. Be well.

Hi Vajrahridaya, I'm relatively ignorant of the Buddhist sutras but something that I think is critical and often under-emphasized is that everything, including the concept of dependent origination is subject to this. That is, dependent origination is not Reality either, as you allude to with "the experience is not the words." Becoming attached to the concept of DO is no less a potential source of dukkha than attachment to the Hindu atman or anything else. Sometimes I get the impression that you are putting forth DO as if it were a description of Reality "according" to Buddhism and I think this is a misrepresentation. It may only be my misinterpretation of your words, but it is my impression. The only thing Buddha was truly concerned with and explained explicitly was suffering and a prescription to address it - not a doctrine, concept, or ideology to address the nature of Reality. The principle of DO is an exercise, a mindset, a prescription to lessen dukkha associated with an attachment to an explanation of Reality. But DO can easily become a concept to cling too and that is not its purpose. I love the paradox. It seems to me that subsequent teachers have over-emphasized Buddhist "explanations" or "concepts" to describe reality and I think that violates the spirit of the "thunderous silence" and emptiness.

Yungchen Lhamo: Ari-lo Luisa Maita: Lero-lero

A few things that may be worth thinking about. People going through the natural process of Buddhist and Daoist cultivation have a much more gradual progression of feelings and experiences of what the self is and what it isn't and so forth. The idea of no-self is just another idea - it is not reality. Reality is much too subtle or complex to capture in a simple word or concept. Buddha introduced the concept simply as a challenge to the concept that existed at the time - that of Advaita Vedanta - the idea of one great Self. The idea of no-self was not intended to represent the truth or reality, just to point out that the Hindus were still clinging to a concept (the Self or Atman) and thus vulnerable to suffering as a result of their attachment. You had an experience in which the feeling of self was severely and suddenly challenged and that can be very scary. It's important to keep in mind that the experience you had was caused by intoxication with a synthetic drug - basically a toxin and it was a very traumatic one. It was not a natural experience or awakening. Drugs often lie to us. They cloud true clarity of perception. They can be very harmful to susceptible people. They emphasize certain things and hide others. The conclusions we draw from drug related experiences are often faulty. This is why it is critical to use drugs for spiritual purposes under experienced guidance, if at all. You could be experiencing a condition known as de-personalization disorder. It can occur after use of hallucinogens and is similar to what you describe. There is a difference between what you are experiencing and the natural experience of connecting to something deeper and more profound that most people describe as a result of natural awakening. It is very rarely so traumatic and horrifying. There is often fear and difficulty but also great joy and love and feelings of peace and security and contentment. The very traumatic experiences are much more commonly associated with sudden, artificial, forced experience through drugs like LSD, Ayahuasca, Salvia Divinorum, and so on. If the negative feelings continue I would suggest you considering talking to a mental health professional - preferably someone with some knowledge of some of these Eastern concepts. These concepts have been gaining considerable attention in the world of mental health. Therapists who work with techniques like ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) and some cognitive therapies are an example. You could also consider speaking to a spiritual advisor of your choice of denomination. Beware of depending solely on a bunch of strangers on a web forum to support you through something so traumatic. Many of us would love to help but a closer, more personal type of support may be more beneficial. Good luck and feel free to send me a private message if you want to discuss anything further.

So while practicing Taijiquan this morning, something occurred to me that's relevant to this discussion. There's been talk about doing Taijiquan without intent (dissolving into the practice) and there's been discussion of the sage and whether he/she acts with intention or not. And certainly we need to be careful about our words and our meaning. So as I'm practicing and I'm using the Yi to guide the Qi in order to cultivate Qi and song it occurs to me that Yi is intent. We can make distinctions between 'intention' and 'intent' but nonetheless, they are closely related. And in Taijiquan we are using the form to train the Yi to guide the Qi and thus cultivating QI and Song (and other things at the same time). Similarly in Neigong and Neiyeh we are developing and refining the Yi. All cultivation practices (well, most at least, all is a dangerous word) are based on and designed to develop skillful application of Yi. So why work so hard on developing and refining Yi if the sage doesn't use it? I don't think the "intent" here is to let go of intent or even diminish it. I think was we develop is a different perspective on what intent is and where it comes from. Who is manifesting intent? And that sort of thing. So the point is to align the intent with its true source and recognize that the pesky "me" thought that tries to intrude and take credit for everything is not the source of the Yi. And when we become the true source of the Yi we are acting in complete accordance with Dao - Wu Wei. To what degree can that occur? Is it a constant thing? Transient? All in my head? Who knows? Not "me"... But it occurred to me and felt right so there it is... Have a nice day everyone.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." J. Krishnamurti

I think you could feel the truth in his eyes and in his smile.

And she may have had a pair of her own if Michelangelo sculpted her...

After reading your question, I realized that I am completely incapable of providing an answer. I thought about how I might respond for a bit and then I decided to take a hot bath because my muscles are sore from practicing this morning. After listening to music for a bit (a beautiful CD by Luisa Maita), I picked up a book sitting nearby. I opened it to where I had left off 2 weeks ago and here is what I read: "Later, when talking to his disciples, the Master was more forceful. "Concepts define," he said. "To define is to destroy. Concepts dissect Reality. And what you dissect you kill." "Are concepts then quite useless?" "No. Dissect a rose and you will have valuable information - and no knowledge whatsoever - of the rose. Become a scholar and you will have much information - but no knowledge whatsoever - of Reality."

Good points Otis. As children, we want to explore and experience everything. As we do, we develop these images of things (oh, that's a tree, I know tree, it can't hurt me, next...) that allows us to screen them out of our everyday consciousness to allow us to focus on more "important" things (real threats, obtaining food, baseball, pornography, whatever). So the admonition to return to the childlike state, refers to recapturing that childlike willingness to see things new. Look at everything equally and with awareness and intent. Because even though we think we know these things through the image we create (the most comical one being God or Tao) we really don't have a clue.

In truth, that would be closer to a miracle. So some of us want to levitate and some live forever. But you may be the most unrealistic of all!

I look at the attitudes Vortex was expressing more as a prescription intended to reduce suffering and to bring about a realization of the true nature of self. The attitudes are not a goal, not an end result, they are a practice. War and hunger matter a great deal to someone who practices these things. It tears their soul apart and they continue to practice. And some of them douse themselves with gasoline and light themselves on fire to protest the inequities in life but most, fortunately, continue to practice. It is not that the prescription is intended to obliterate emotion and creativity, just teach us how to experience these things fully and put them in perspective without becoming so attached to them that we suffer. Now I do think that a lot of practitioners erroneously confuse the method with the goal or outcome. But if they are patient, diligent, and dedicated, that passes. Eventually they see the method for what it is, just a tool. And I also think it is unhealthy and against the spirit of these methods to continually deny ourselves. The objective of life is not to be dispassionate or uncaring or numb or dull or an ascetic but to live fully. The true monk or sage is one who thoroughly enjoys life - they laugh and love but they also honor the practice for what it is. I get your point, ralis, about the potential for numbness, passivity, and lack of creativity. I think that is an individual choice. The most creative and humane activities can be approached in a rote and robotic manner. And the most mundane, including the practice of non-attachment, requires great creativity, passion, and sensitivity if we are to be truly successful. I think this is something that distinguishes those who succeed from those who quit. Not sure it makes complete sense or you will agree but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

As I continue to follow this program I've noticed a few things. The shaking occurs sooner and becomes more intense. It has spread, at times, to my entire body - arms, legs, hands, feet... My right hand and arm are particularly involved, whatever that means. The shaking also penetrates beyond the physical and into the energetic and emotional levels to varying degrees. The physical result is that I don't feel nearly as tight and uncomfortable in the low back, hips, and thighs as I had been feeling. I feel a bit more energized and motivated - more meditation, taiji, qigong,... Not much change that I can really identify psychologically or emotionally so far. I certainly feel enough benefit from the practice to continue. I haven't finished reading the book yet but I like it.

It is not going to improve in the short term, only get worse. I think it is the natural consequence of technological "progress." With our current psychological and spiritual level of maturity, I think it will need to get much worse before we make meaningful change. Perhaps we will wake up at a global level and perhaps not. If not, we are going to be a self limited event. Thank goodness the Democrats are now in power, huh? (And don't misunderstand me, I'm certainly not a Republican, just disappointed... but not surprised).

It may sound trite and insincere but the simplest and quickest method to reach enlightenment is to do nothing. Quit now. You're already what you are. The only thing preventing you from seeing that is you. It's just a matter of perspective. That said, it is also a very difficult method (as are all the others) because the method really isn't the point. The method doesn't cause "enlightenment" - it doesn't cause any fundamental change. It just gives you a way to exhaust yourself so thoroughly that you give up, and when you have punished yourself enough, you wake up and understand and that's it. If you haven't already, please watch these wonderful video clips that Oolong Rabbit recently posted. Good luck on your path.

Beautiful posts Oolong - In the fourth clip he states, "no teacher is necessary." This is the same message of jiddu Krishnamurti and Anthony Demello and others I agree 100% and at the same time I question this - Everyone who has said that no teacher is necessary has had a teacher - usually multiple. So would they (we) have ever reached this realization without the teachers? The truth is that no teacher is necessary and yet we need something or someone to push us way, far out. As far as we can go and beyond that. As far as we need to go before we are at our wits end. We need to run into the brick wall or end up on our face in the gutter. Whether its chanting in a hut for 40 years or praying in a monastery or transforming jing to qi to shen to wu Then we realize that we are already there. As Alan Watts says, the answer is always right there in front of us (inside of us). But we need to punish ourselves enough before we allow our selves to see it. I'm not saying this is a conscious process but it does seem to be in play. So, as some have already said, Body of Light may need to go to the Himalayas, whether he watches these wonderful clips or not. Our minds are incredibly stubborn and will not yield before ready.

I think I would tend to agree with you on this.

Petals, in your palm Gray mist embraces Ranier Do you feel my thoughts?

I wonder... Is impartiality our natural state? Or is it something that requires intent. Is this state of effortless impartiality within our grasp or an ideal pointed to in scripture?

Tubular Bells also was very significant for me in the '70's. I have to check out more of Oldfield's stuff because I never did. Around the same time I was also affected by Chris Squire's "Fish Out of Water" and Jon Anderson's "Olias of Sunhillow" and Yes, I was a Yes fan.