forestofclarity

edit

Only if one has a narrow view of history.

Classically, there are two states of concentration: dharana, in which the mind is brought to bear on an object, and samadhi or dhyana, wherein the mind is "absorbed" into the object. Jhana is basically the Buddhist equivalent of absorption (i.e. dhyana), but has 4-8 levels depending on the teaching. It appears Adam would call the prior state samatha (aka shamatha, i.e. tranquility). He rightly identifies that the mind should not be forced on the object, but brought to rest on the object. The first jhana typically has 5 factors: applied thought, sustained thought, one-pointedness, joy and happiness. What these terms mean is subject to much debate depending on the specific Theravada teacher and tradition, and whether they stick with the Suttas (recordings of the oral teachings of the Buddha) or use commentaries such as the Visudhimagga. Of course, people may tell you its very simple and the true, original, inner door, secret, esoteric view is the view of their particular school (and actually, this often applies across the board in various spiritual traditions). So Adam is not really being as controversial as he sounds, given that he is rooted in the Theravada Visudhimagga tradition, but with a Thai forest take (this is very key, and actually strikes me as a bit Tantric/Yogic and is also quite controversial in Theravada circles). Based on what I've read in his book, in daily life you would practice only vipassana. On the cushion you would start with shallower forms of shamatha and proceed to deeper forms, and then in the causes and conditions align jhana would arise. Vipassana plays a part, but I am not fully clear on how he teaches this on the cushion. In addition, metta is very key to his teaching, as it should be, along with sila. However, I am not a student of his and these are just my brief impressions. In modern day, some would use the word "meditation" to cover the entire length and breadth of practice. The interesting thing is that at some point, the fundamental appearance of the mind shifts or changes from one's ordinary mind to another state altogether wherein the senses, thinking, your persona, etc. completely vanish which is variously interpreted in different traditions over the world.

Where did that happen?

First of all, his overall tone, demeanor, and way of speaking made a very unfavorable impression. But I think that's for each person to consider. I will admit I also give him a strike as a homeopathist. His thoughts seemed scattered. He obviously hasn't learned that if you think you are going to say something that sounds racist, you should probably keep quiet. Getting down to brass tacks, I don't agree that tummo is necessary to make anything work, that as taught tummo doesn't work, or that development stage practice is pretending to be a deity. Tummo is, as far as I've been taught, a secondary or auxiliary practice, and necessarily so, and it is not universally practiced. As for whether it works, that is up for each person to decide if they even choose to do it (and many do not). Tibetan Buddhism is no monolith, so opinions and practices vary widely. Tibetan Buddhism can be a bit of a Lama factory. Often the primary importance appears to be preserving the teachings, and accordingly there is a bit of an assembly line system for lamas. In addition, most historical texts and commentaries talk about how a realized teacher is as rare as day time stars and so on. It is not a new thing. One respected teacher recognized Steven Seagal as a tulku. I do think there are good reasons for such an approach. You need discernment, and you get that by study, practice, and taking teachings. There are the traditional checks and balances of the teacher, the historical teaching, and one's experience. If a teacher does not accord with the historical teaching or your personal experience, then maybe that is not the teacher to follow. Similarly, if you disagree with the teacher and the tradition, then maybe you are in the wrong. In my experience, I have seen issues with those who practice but don't study, and those who study but don't practice. Many teachers agree. You and others may not, that's up to you. One is never secure from delusion until enlightenment. I do find there is a bit of "help" available if one is looking, but that has to be discovered. Many of us pass through a "stream entry" stage. There are lessons to be learned from such teachers as well. If they are satisfied with their level of attainment, that's on them. Maybe that's as far as they go, maybe not. Just my opinion/imagination/impressions. I appreciate the chance to organize my thoughts.

Depends on what you mean by meditation and what your goal is. If you think the goal of meditation, like the Samkhyas, is to get rid of all thinking, then yes. And if that is truly your goal, or even similar to your goal, then there is no reason to remain in the world -- time for taking monastic vows. What about non-monastics? From a Mahayana, Tantric point of view, initially developed by and for non-monastics, the problem is generally not with appearances, but with clinging. To understand this, you have to understand the Mahyana view is aimed at helping all sentient beings achieve liberation, including householders. On top of this there is the shared Tantric view (shared with Shaivites and Advaitins for example) that everything is divine, but we are ignorant of it. So there would be no reason to reject visualization out of hand. Nor is there a reason to reject thinking, feeling, and all the wonderful things that make us human. If your goal is to become familiar with the mind's processes, and how it fabricates concepts and clings to them, then using visualization would make sense. In addition, visualization works with allowing one to maintain the meditative view in the midst of thinking, which is also very important if you are a lay person who has to think during the day. Of course, some people think that Mahayana and Tantra is bunch of nonsense, and that's ok too--- there's enough room for everyone in my view. In fact, some Mahayana and Tantric folks practice very much like Theravada with monastic vows and deep concentration (and Theravada people practice in Mahayana and Tantric ways, it is not all one thing). And keep in mind that not every Vajrayana path uses or even emphasizes visualization, it is one tool among many.

I agree that context matters, and so do definitions. One thing that is seldom mentioned is that we are typically engaged in forms of visualization and imagination all the time. This is exactly what delusion is: projecting something unreal and taking it to be real. This can be simple, for instance, projecting various negative motivations into other drivers on the highway. Or it can be complex, such as imagining that we and the world around us aren't in a state of constant change. Anyone who is not fully realized is engaged in some level of delusory imagination. So it isn't a matter of imagining or not imagining--- we're constantly imagining already. So it isn't really a question of imagining or not--- it is more of a question whether the tendency can be studied and co-opted for spiritual purposes.

These interviews were interesting, I will say. Damo's seems like a poor effort to discredit Vajrayana generally, and is a bit self-parodying. His guest clearly has a lot of issues, and quite frankly, I feel it was unskillful to put him out there like that for marketing. The thing that boggles my mind is that anyone would take it seriously. Adam's video and criticism is actually much more nuanced and interesting, and quite frankly, not unlike criticisms I have heard from within Vajrayana (though those tend to go much further in my experience). Simply put, the common run of anything is likely to be not really that great. If I were to go to one of the hundreds of Tai Chi classes at my local recreation center, I would likely find very little of value. But this is garden variety Tai chi, just as there is garden variety Theravada and Vajrayana Buddhism. Personally, I have found that most traditions do authenticity to them, if not commonly known or practiced. One issue with merely following a teacher, however, is that one often misses the historical teachings and context. While a teacher is very important, it is also important to educate oneself on the basis of the tradition, i.e. the historical scriptures and commentaries. I would say for Adam, his meditation practice is informed by the "nirvikapla" trends within Buddhism and Yoga (he even cites the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali for example). These are practices that tend to be practiced in renunciate, monastic communities as they often require a great deal of time and effort. However, there are also paths specifically designed for non-renunciates, which typically fall into the "savikalpa," Tantric, or Mahayana trends. In some cases, these are presented as mutually exclusive, and in others they are not. Of course, people on each side often pooh-pooh the other. Within his particular tradition (Visuddhimagga Theravada), he appears to know what he is talking about (at least in my opinion based on this interview) and is worth considering to those interested in his particular type of path.

Try talking to a Tibetan, Or an Uyghar.

Technically, all of the Pali Canon were recorded after his death, but try this one: https://suttacentral.net/an4.36/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false “As a lovely white lotusis not soiled by the water,I am not soiled by the world:therefore, O brahmin, I am a Buddha.”

Well, that's not necessarily true, but more how things are presented publicly or exoterically. Usually such discussions are reserved for private discussions with one's teacher who, hopefully, knows how to steer one down the proper path. There are many good reasons for this. What I think is interesting about many of these people is that when they have a meditation experience or insight, they seldom if ever take it to their teacher for guidance and often reject traditional authentication outright. This is important because trying to lead oneself out of one's own ignorance can be a bit of a fool's errand. In addition, the teacher has the entire lineage to draw on. One difference is my own experience is that non-traditionalists tend to affirm what traditional teachers often deny. But I'm not the dharma police, so people can and should pursue teachings they find helpful.

Anyone doing any weird new age stuff? I decided to play around with OBE as an extension of lucid dreaming, and it has led me down some weird rabbit holes.

Are you saying that you have completely mastered neidan with your mysterious, unnamed master in the 24-30 months since you came here inquiring about qi machines? Of course you can see why people may be skeptical.

He explicitly addresses Chandrakirti's 7 Arguments from 0:45 - 1:20. His conclusion is that atman "slips through Chandrakirti's net." This is notable because it isn't just an idea he's kicking around, but he presented it to Jay Garfield who is no slouch when it comes to Madhyamaka. I'm under the impression that Michael80 is claiming there is some sort of experience or insight beyond the pure knowing consciousness, which strikes me as incoherent. The video is long, I only posted it for those interested. It is not substantially different from the Holocek interview, the main difference is the direct confrontation of Madhyamaka reasoning. Of course, it is speculated that Advaita via Shankara via Guadapada was influenced by such things in developing their school, so it would make sense that they considered it.

I think this is a different point. Swami S. evidently did a paper showing that emptiness does not apply to the Vedantic Self. I'm not sure how I feel about it. He discusses it below IIRC.

This was primarily in a Vedanta context, but briefly switching gears: Would you say the gzhi is dependently originated? If so, upon what does it depend?

It is not clear to me. The title of the link is "states of consciousness" and even the state "beyond consciousness" is described as a "perspective" and an "experience of Reality." These are all within consciousness. The idea that a state, experience, feeling, or some X beyond consciousness is incoherent. Even if it existed, it would be absolutely unknowable as any knowing or knowledge is consciousness. It would have no relation to consciousness, because any relation is joining or uniting with consciousness. Accordingly, it would be impossible to even consider, think about, discuss, write about, or point to. If I were being generous, I would say that they may be pointing to subtler and subtler objects of consciousness that are often mistaken for consciousness. For example, the feeling of presence, the feeling I am, the sense of infinite space, etc.

Maybe it is just me but this link is bringing up this topic.

Presence and absence are not consciousness, but states of consciousness. From a Vedantic POV, consciousness is not a state, but is common to all states (much as being is not a thing but is common to all things). Accordingly, when you type "the absence of it is very strange at first" means that it was arising in consciousness. This is the problem with non-traditional teachers. They only have their own experience to draw upon, whereas established traditions have the collective experiences of thousands of high level practitioners.

I'm not sure that qi emission (fa qi) and fajin are the same thing. Fajin as commonly referred to appears to be biomechanical (i.e. dependent on physical structures), whereas qi emission would not be. At some point, many schools decided to focus on the biomechanics and not the qi. I suppose a well rounded Tai Chi school would have both, although it is not something I've really found (although I am not a deep learner in this area). I'm not sure that any traditional, form based martial art is really functional in this day and age anyway, thus the popularity of MMA.

I would recommend checking some of his free stuff out first. Some of his public stuff is straight form the academy, so you can get a taste of it right away. There is a foundations set of videos he has posted. My main issue was with the sheer number of practices and the time involved. Also, there is a lot of moving stuff that I personally don't think you can really do without in-person feedback and adjustments. For example:

I'm still working through his Foundations of Qigong, but if anyone is interested, he is offering a free MCO course: https://damomitchell.com/2020/03/23/microcosmic-orbit/

Interesting video. What he says makes sense to me, but I am no expert on Daoist meditation (although it is congruent with some Daoist methods I have been exposed to). There are some interesting parallels with some of the Buddhist expressions I have learned. I've been told the same thing, but in a Buddhist context. In addition, expressing these signs too openly allows the mind to gin up experiences to cling onto.

I noted before that this is a skill that one can train in daily life. For example, when we get an urge to do something, we can just sit with that urge for a moment before acting. Other ways to expand this tolerance in safe ways include sitting still for longer meditations, various forms of physical exercise, etc. You can also do practices such as giving up the good parking spots and walking, taking cold showers, and so on. I would not say the goal is detachment so much as non-attachment.

Haven't you heard that enlightened people don't dream?