forestofclarity

I would generally agree. I think that Tantra emerged primarily as a means of spiritual practice for lay persons, and over time it got co-opted into the larger Tibetan monastic institutions, at least in the Sarma traditions. In addition, the Tibetans were strong collectors, which means they essentially catalogued and kept almost every practice known to them through history. In addition, Tibetan Buddhism tends to be quite conservative and accordingly slow to change in some respects. However, I do think this is already happening, although it it really varies from teacher to teacher. There have always been lay practitioners of Vajrayana stretching all the way back to India. From a shared melting pot, there emerged both Tantric Buddhism and Tantric Shaivism. In some sense, Vajrayana originated as a reaction and repudiation of the dominant Buddhist paradigms in India. The lay tradition survives in Tibet via ngakpas and other lay practitioners (there is also a strong history of lay Shaiva Tantric practitioners). For example, it is not unusual also to hear about lay people retiring into full time practice once their family is grown and moved away and achieving full enlightenment. There are also invisible yogis who practice secretly while living an ordinary life. The full gamut has always been present. Additionally, if you look closely, you will also see the full gamut of practices ranging from lengthy multi-day rituals to very concise, consolidated practices. In Tibet, the monastic institutions were a bit more stable and dominant as they also became the seat of political power as well as centers of learning. Accordingly, they came to dominate the public discourse.

Best wishes in your continued journey, SOTG.

So we're really talking about physical manifestations of subtle body accomplishments, rather than spiritual realization as set forth by Buddhist and Vedantic sources. Which isn't to diminish, dismiss or demean such things, but it seems like there's a bit of apples and oranges comparison.

Pathogenic release happens in Vajrayana as well. Individual practices have what we call "signs of accomplishment." Most of this stuff is kept under wraps, and not just to keep things under wraps. Silence is a bit of a protective measure when you are dealing with some of the more magical side of things. I would say it is better to keep an open mind about these things, even if you think they are impossible. I would also say that if you think something is impossible, it will be impossible. Accordingly, I am always a bit hesitant to let these sorts of limiting thoughts take root in my mind, and I would not recommend them to others. I used to think Vajrayana was kind of useless, but I don't anymore, which genuinely surprised me. Of course, from a Buddhist POV, every thing that manifests is due to ripening of karma, so this is important to keep in mind when delving into this stuff. At any rate, I hope your health improves or keeps improving. So these do not seem to be saying the same thing. What I have most often heard is the second, that energetic practices will enhance what is already there, so an jerk becomes a super jerk, and a saint becomes a super saint. This is the model that seems to reflect my personal experience and interactions with others. In addition, this is fairly in line with Buddhist tradition as well with the distinction between samadhi and prajna. Damo teaches more or less the same thing if I am recalling correctly, which is why Damo teaches both types of practices. However, the bottom line is that in my mind people may have power without wisdom, or wisdom and not display power. The first model is interesting-- Glenn Morris was of this opinion for example. I'm not sure what to make of it, because in a sense it would seem to deprive one of the opportunity to work with negative states of mind. In this case, they would be eliminated not through seeing through them, but through a biological or energetic process, which sounds to me like a healthier form of Prozac or soemthing. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't turn it down if offered. Which of course would not be, given I am a lazy, busy, part-time practitioner at best.

What I use are the big three: traditional scriptures/commentaries, a teacher’s guidance and personal experience. The first contains the experience of many who have come before, the second some one who has realized to some degree here and now, and your own path which is the path to come. Over time these generate an increasingly familiar roadmap of the mind and mental functions. The traditional literature and oral tradition contain signs to look for: the ten fetter model, the five wisdoms model, the six realms, etc. Some are not public. Some are multileveled. Some are basic, others are detailed. At first, they are a bit static and ideal, perhaps fragmented. You have lots of doubts. But you find your own map starts to develop. At first, the map is kind of small and basic, but as you study, listen, contemplate and practice it becomes more clear, expansive, and precise. At first, it is mostly a map of the mind in ignorance and suffering. You begin to learn a lot about this, how it feels inside and how it is expressed bodily. You choose teachers who aren’t always great and make a lot of errors. You start to see cause and effect. You become familiar with the suffering mind. But over time, this changes. As you journey along, you learn from your practice and errors, so discernment and intuition increase. Promised qualities like compassion and equanimity start to manifest. Scriptures come to life and reveal deeper meanings. As you become more discerning with teachers and teachings (or learn to trust your teacher more based on what you have verified) and this shows up in your practice. Your practice becomes less about what you heard or read and more about what you have directly experienced. Fleeting negative states become more stable, and stable negative states become more fleeting. Your habitual patterns and ways of seeing begin to change. Your view expands, your conduct becomes more benevolent, and your suffering decreases. You become familiar with another way of being—- as taught in alignment with the scriptures and oral tradition. What was ideal starts to become real. You start to catch glimpses of the coherence of the vision. So I would say it is more about recognizing what you have already studied, heard, and verified: in many cases, recognizing ignorance and suffering.

You asked before, so I'll let you have a crack: how did you assess and measure their development? More efficient way of doing what exactly? This is a key question.

You will find similar approaches within Vajrayana, for example, B. Allan Wallace. His definitions of jhana are similar. It is very difficult. Even people in full time retreat do fall short. These states are not unfamiliar to Vajrayana. I think Adam's view makes sense within his tradition, but it appears to be based on the assumptions of the tradition. For example, in the metaphor, two similar but qualitatively different things are used that can be easily mixed but difficult to separate: milk and water. This makes sense within the Theravada view, but not the view of Mahayana in my opinion. If the X and Y are not essentially different, then the metaphor does not hold. Let's say you are trying to learn about gold, and you into a gold smith's shop. You see gold candles, gold necklaces, gold rings. You're not going to say "Where's the gold?" because the gold is everywhere. Even if the gold is shaped into very beautiful and intricate patterns, it is still gold. Now let say you walk into the workshop, and you see the smith melting down the gold so that it is formless. This doesn't mean you've discovered "true" gold and the other gold is "false," it is just another state of gold. Even if you keep that gold melted for a week, there is no more and no purer gold than when it was a ring. Nor is the gold of use in that state: you can't take it with you, wear it, give it to your lover, etc. Once you realize gold is gold, it doesn't matter whether it is in a specific shape or not. Everything flows from the view in my mind (Step one on the eightfold path).

Interesting quote from Adam's book:

It is a bit ironic, but understandable. Everyone lowers the bar for other traditions:

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?