forestofclarity

Similarly, there is no good warrant for universalizing one's experience. Let's say I was color blind from birth. No matter how I looked, I could see no color. Would it make sense to deny color under all times and conditions? Of course not. But this is what Rupert does, in my mind.

I don't think that's Sam's point at all. In my mind, this argument is based on the confusion between epistemology and ontology. Rupert says that we cannot experience anything apart from consciousness (a statement about what we can know, or epistemology) , therefore nothing exists outside of consciousness (a statement about ontology). He further makes this claim on the basis on his own (or anyone's) current conscious experience, not from any ultimate POV. But as Sam points out, this is a mere tautology as experience and consciousness is the same thing. Sam's point is that when is under anesthesia, the world is still carrying on apart from one's conscious experience of it, which tends to support the idea of a world apart from one's conscious experience (or indeed, the conscious experience of any instantiated being).

I always have the fantasy that when I'm retired, I'll spend more time practicing. I've heard a lot of Tibetan stories about householders who, upon retirement, go into long term retreat and attain high states of realization. However, at one time, I had a few months between jobs. I thought, "wow, I will really use this time for practice." And I did. Practicing watching Netflix, going to the gym, walking around outside, going to book stores, reading, playing video games, sleeping in, etc. For some reason, I find it easier to practice when I have less time.

Are you still working @thelerner?

If you follow certain strands of Mahayana, your mind is just a giant cosmic vagina. As the routine goes (often mis-attributed to Betty White):

A major difference, though: in martial arts, a loss in real life can mean permanent damage or death. In spirituality, "losing" on the "battlefield" actually makes you better.

MNS, my comments are a bit tongue-in-cheek. Actually, the very idea that we can generalize and overlook the differences is something of an essentialist stance, which is often rejected in Buddhism. But the differences are significant. What tends to unite Buddhism are the 4 Noble Truths, the 5 dharma seals, and some development of mind training via some dynamic combination of shamatha (tranquility) and vipassana (insight). The 4 Noble Truths are: 1. There is suffering. 2. Suffering is a result of clinging/grasping. 3. Removing clinging/grasping removes suffering. 4. You do this by following the 8 Fold Path (Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration). The Dharma Seals are: 1. All compounded things are impermanent 2. All impure phenomenon are suffering 3. All phenomenon are empty of inherent existence 4. Nirvana is the only peace

That looked like cop-fu to me. Watching these fights, I cannot tell style (except that ridiculous kick in this video). Most of it looks like generic kickboxing and generic grappling. Some styles tend to be better at these than others. Making a transition from practice with forms and hitting bags to actually fighting another person (even with rules) is such a paradigm shift that I would say it is like learning a new style. I presume there is a similar paradigm shift from ring fighting to street fighting (with its weapons, multiple opponents, different environments and elements of surprise).

Well, take something as simple as Buddhism. Do you mean: Zen (Rinzai or Soto), Chan (Caodong, Linji, or one of the other five houses), Seon, Thien, Theravada (sutta based or Abhidhamma based? hard jhana, soft jhana, or dry insight? Thai forest tradition, Thai non-forest tradition, Burmese, or Tantric? Traced to Goenka, Mahasi, U Pandita, Ajahn Chah etc.?), Tibetan Buddhism (Gelug, Kagyu, Nyingma, Sakya, Jonang, Rime, Bon, or some mix of some or all?); Pureland, Nichiren, Tendai, Jodo Shu, Shingon, etc. This is not even going into subdivisions, schools I've forgotten or am unaware of, etc. Each of them is going to be different. Even in the same school and the same sub-set, different teachers are going to approach it differently.

Groping around is part of the search, in my mind. It helps build discernment. Plus, you never know what's going to work for any particular person.

I agree with CT, and add that there may be some compelling reasons to NOT fret over the length of sitting practice. Typically, people who try to do long sits are following a more traditional paradigm. In the traditional Buddhist paradigm (Suttas and Abhdidhamma), longer meditation periods were prescribed for celibate monastics, often in a retreat setting under the supervision of a teacher. This usually involved developing deep states of concentration called jhana. In the non-traditional setting, this type of practice can actually harden the mind, rendering it less sensitive. It can also result in blocking thoughts and creating an artificial "void." It can also result in dull states that are often confused with jhana. Really, there is no end to states that the mind can create. In some cases, people can have severe adverse reactions. Accordingly, I would not recommend this type of practice outside of a retreat and/or without a teacher available. Of course, there are other methods that do not require such practices, although the traditionalists often deny it. When folks have trouble with sitting, I would wager it is one of three major issues: physical issues, energetic issues, or mind issues. Physical issues include lack of proper posture, injuries, poor health, etc. Energetic issues are more subtle. If your subtle channels are not opened somewhat, sitting can be quite difficult, especially in the legs. Finally, there are mind problems--- boredom, agitation, etc. All of these are different problems with different solutions.

I had one for many years on a shelf at home that my friend got me from India in the mid-1990's. I put it on a shelf for many years. Then one day, I had the chance to connect with non-dual Shaiva Tantra. Now it usually sits on my Buddhist altar. I've tended to stop thinking about these things so linearly.

My experience of course is anecdotal, but I've been involved in a number of martial arts classes over the years. In every class, there were the fighter and non-fighters. Every "fight" story I've heard was either 1) a fight they picked or escalated or 2) a fight they could have avoided. I've been told that in my area, MMA people like to go to bars and try to start fights. I don't hang out at bars, so I don't know. But ask yourself--- how many mature adults actually get into fights? Not many. So if I were to generalize, most people who are using their MA skills are picking fights. The same thing happens with the military. When you give a person a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Good fighters, IME, develop a type of violent mentality. However, a good martial artist will develop awareness and calmness. Ironically, the leading causes of death are health and stress related. So a martial art that teaches one to discipline and stress reduction is probably a better choice than learning to fight. And as far as violent death goes, the person most likely to kill you is yourself (suicide). The second most likely person is one's male partner (boyfriend/husband).

I would say familiarity breeds contempt. In the West, we have romanticized old Tibet. We see it as a peaceful, idyllic place where everyone got along and acted like HHDL, inspired by many "Shangri-La" depictions in the West. This is not the case, as there are many controversies and reports about possible feudalism, torture, assassination, religious persecution, etc. (although some of this is based on Chinese propaganda, as an attempt to justify their own torture, genocide, etc). If you review some oral histories and grounded research you will find great spiritual development along with some dark things.

So your plan is to used unarmed fighting skills in a home invasion, or against a meth head with a glock? You may wish to rethink that. It seems to me the people most likely to need MA skills against an unarmed attacker are not the people I generally see at MA classes-- namely women.

You know what Buddhist call optical illusions? That's right. You ARE a crypto-Buddhist! Welcome brother!

Where is everyone living that they need a high level of skill in unarmed fighting? Is there a weapons free island or zone like in all the 1980's martial arts movies? Or is this for secret underground bloodsport tournaments?

We're playing Shankaracharya rules, right? Loser coverts? The subject need not be dependent on the object, nor the object on the subject. Rather, the appearance of a subject depends on an object, and vice versa. They are interdependent. Similarly, if there were no movies, there could be no movie screens. I suppose we could imagine a theoretical Subject in which no object ever appears, but that would not be relevant to the current situation, because objects have appeared. The problem with asserting independence is that is denies a relationship. A relationship is a coming together, a merging, a union. According, if the Self were truly changeless and independent, there would be no knowing objects because 1) knowing a rising/falling object is a change; or 2) Subject and object would be completely separate. This is the problem that always sinks dualities: when you posit two separate things, there's no way to bring them together, because the very act of bringing them together negates the separation (and thus any sort of independence). That's why many philosophies tend to argue over what kind of thing everything is (materialism = everything is matter; idealism = everything is mind; monism = everything is God), as dualities cannot be maintained. From a Buddhist POV, you never really find an atomic one or essence to anything, because nothing can really be pinned down, and all attempts to pin things down are merely conceptual. Part of the problem is that we take our concepts to be real when they're not. I mean, look at all the issues we have with trying to even define a self! Switching from a unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable Self to an unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable "Being" does not shore up the case. Of course, many accused the Mahayana of "smuggling in the Atman!"

The way I think about it, there is a fundamental logical contradiction that is apparent: everything is completely empty and lacking any self, yet there is all of this phenomenon appearing like.... well, like magic. As Mipham Rinpoche says, "appearing yet empty; empty yet appearing," or the Heart Sutra's "form is emptiness, emptiness form" or the traditional 8 similes of illusion or the Longchenpa's second vajra point. Now a lot of people like to rely on the simile portion, saying it is "like" this or that. To me, I tend to follow the logic, much like Gendun Chophel: I struggled with this for a long time, until I started to look into quantum physics. Quantum physics introduces experiments that boggle logic. There are similar logic boggling things that arise in practice and in sleep/dream yoga. Accordingly, I feel I had to make a choice: my logical framework, or direct experience. In the end, I realized I had little choice but to embrace paradox. Appearances are fundamentally mysterious, and wonderful. In other words, magic. In Buddhism, the texts are replete with reference to "illusions" and "illusory" nature. However, Bob Thurman pointed out in English this is a little demeaning, so he prefers the term "magical." Similarly, on the Yogacara side of Mahayana, everything we experience is a transformation of consciousness, a literal dream. To paraprhase B. Alan Wallace, waking is dreaming with conditions, and night dreaming is dreaming without conditions. Again, that strikes as as eminently magical. Interesting side note: I always wondered about the magical illusion simile in Buddhism, where rocks and string can take the form of elephants and so on. Jan Westerhoff pointed out what this was in one of his books:

@dwai, glad you can assist me in avoiding doing things I don't want to do. This sounds like an argument for the emptiness of the Atman. Let's check: 1. "It cannot be captured with any of the sensory apparatuses. It cannot be described by the mind. If the mind tries to find it, it fails and finds only stillness and silence instead." In addition, "it is not something that can be experienced using the normal faculties and apparatuses (like the mind and the inner and outer senses)" In other words, it is not findable under analysis. There is nothing for the mind to grasp onto as there is nothing fixed, substantial, findable, etc. i.e. = empty. 2. In order to not be empty, it should have an independent, unitary, permanent self. a. Is it independent? No: the Atman is described as "as pure subject predicate, without which no manifestation can happen." Accordingly, it is not independent, it relates to manifestation. b. Is it permanent? No: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." c. Is it unitary? No, for reason #2. 3. Assertion to the contrary: "This root does not change", however, this is just a way of speaking since "both space and time appear in it." How can one talk about change without space and time? Change means time, which means we're already outside of this "Atman" and into manifestation. 4. Explicit confirmation that it is empty: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." and "Atman is the selfless Self. It is the lightless light." Using contradictory words right next to each other suggests a mutual negation, i.e. that it doesn't really fit in one or the other. So... perhaps this Atman is truly not-self after all? If not, what is its essence (keeping in mind it cannot be described in terms of the senses or mental categories)?

Hey, I tried :

I would go a step further and say that the entire Mahayana Buddhist paradigm is a magical one. In fact, some have suggested using the term "magical" instead of "illusory." Given emptiness and interdependence, there is no reason to exclude magic from Buddhism other than cultural bias. I think a lot of Westerners try to downplay it and promote Buddhism as a way of reason in an effort to make it palatable to Westerners. Not all teachers do this, including Namkhai Norbu who gave secondary practitioners as a matter of rote and recommended their use to his students matter-of-factly. As a Westerner, entering into and exiting a more magical paradigm helps to loosen one's worldview, in my experience.

How would you work on the mind without qi, and how would you work on qi without mind?

Self threads should start with reasonably clear definitions.

I think the text issue is more of a problem with Tibetan Buddhist schools in particular. Part of that has to due with the theory that a person should have a complete set of instructions before meditating. A lot of TB retreats are structured around the notion that when you have your teacher present, you should get instruction, and then go off to practice (traditionally you would go off to a hermitage). Also, some TB schools are more practice oriented (like the Kagyu) than others. Zen and Theravada tend to be very practice oriented, in my experience, to the point where there is, in my opinion, insufficient instruction. Some TB schools have taken a page from the Zen/Theravada book and added more practice oriented elements since Westerners often take the instruction but never practice. I don't agree that the texts are aimed at a rational understanding so much as going beyond concepts. It is not like Western philosophy, in my experience. Some of the online distortion arises because many TB students are allowed to publicly discuss things like emptiness but not allowed to discuss the nuts and bolts of practice. I do find the notion that there is a rare stream of esoteric teaching open to the very few to be a very Taoist (among other paths), as opposed to Buddhist. I don't know what the standard post-death teaching is for Taoists, but at least some teachers I've come across have taught that most people will just dissolve into nothing upon death. Whereas with Buddhism, most of us are going to continue the journey, whether in a Pureland or in another life. So a person is merely following the 5 precepts is progressing along the (very long, multi-lifetime) Buddhist path, and so is everyone else. Accordingly, what constitutes the path in Buddhism is very broad. The "dumbed down" approach may be the right thing for that particular person in this particular life.