forestofclarity

Personally, I've never bought into the division between theory and practice, or thinking and experience. Thinking is an experience, isn't it? Feelings, colors, textures, and so on can all be a part of the mental landscape of thought. In addition, experience shapes thinking, and thinking shapes experience, at least from my point of view. I've never found the line or boundary between thoughts, feelings, energy, and perceptions. For me, all these this/that dichotomies tend to crumble. One thing I like about this forum is seeing the many displays of human expression. I used to want everyone to agree with me, but now I see that there is beauty in diversity. Imagine how boring rainbows, sunsets, and the autumn would be if they were one color.

Your claims are not correct. First, many Shravaka schools are realist schools, so they would not accept the proposition that the world is completely illusory. This is well-established in Abhidhamma/Abhidharma. Second, the first two of the classic seven factors of enlightenment are mindfulness (sati) and a keen investigation of dharmas (dhammavicaya) so curiosity of a part of Buddhism. In fact, I've had it expressly presented that way by several monks. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.html Buddhism is very broad. Please learn more about the tradition before presuming to guide practitioners (especially those who have actual living teachers).

That's an interesting take, although you seem to be saying "no" and "yes" at the same time. It is probably my own confusion. Things are presented differently on the Nyingma side in my mind. For example, Jigme Lingpa in his Fearless Lion's Roar details 8 errors, 3 diversions, and 4 ways of straying. Ju Mipham Rinpoche also details errors in his Lamp to Dispel the Darkness, a book that is especially meaningful to me as it saved me from continuing in a long, long error. Actually, most texts on the Nyingma side detail various errors-- including the source Tantras. There is also a story about Milarepa hearing the teachings, and then sitting idle all day. His teacher yelled at him and gave him a different set of teachings. Of course, as we know, there are oral teachings, but the above sources are publicly available and this is a public forum. At any rate, it is interesting to learn about differences.

That is why you're not a Buddhist. Emptiness is at the heart of Buddhism, IME. There is clear vocabulary in the Buddhist traditions, but, as with everything, it depends on what you're practicing. I have found that in practice situations, the terms have specific experiential components. The distinction between say, mind and matter in Theravada is something that is only fully understood in the context of meditation. Typically, the concepts are used in an attempt to point beyond concepts, although this point is often missed in my opinion. Giving up concepts is difficult, probably even more difficult than giving up sex and coffee. There are always concepts that we tend to treasure more than others.

Given your practice, do you think there is a time when even this kind of positive story-making has to be given up?

I would say it really depends on the path. Part of the issue here is that there are many people on many different paths, so trying to cross-correlate different definitions leads to confusion. From a Buddhist point of view, what we are trying to do is become free. As the Buddha reputedly said, "Just as the mighty ocean has but on taste, the taste of salt, so too has my teaching but one taste: the taste of freedom." If we are Buddhists, then we are becoming free of thoughts and everything else. Accordingly, with this goal, certain thoughts can help point one to freedom, but other thoughts (probably the vast majority) lead to delusion, clinging and craving.

Of course. I really only piped up because of the comparison to Dzogchen teachings, and it seems to me to be very far apart from Dzogchen. I do think it is important to practice with diligence and devotion. Some day-- maybe soon, maybe later--- the time for practice will be done.

Why do you think I haven't had any direct experience?

Elias Capriles wrote a long and academic treatment of the transpersonal movement, and Wilber in particular. He wrote an interesting comparison in his Beyond Mind II between transpersonal spiritual and Dzogchen, Capriles being an authorized teacher under Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. It is not an easy read, and as I said, it quite academic. https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=ijts-transpersonalstudies

It is potentially problematic if you are following a path that describes subject-object duality as an illusion or misconception. I wish I had been more careful about the mental habits I had built. Once they're in, they can be difficult to remove. I suppose it depends on the path. It is interesting that these are affirmations to be repeated rather than topics to be explored. On that note, it is strikes me as a form of self-hypnosis rather than a meditation.

I have Dzogchen and Kagyu Mahamudra teachers. I mostly practice being lazy and busy.

If stopping thought was the issue, we'd be enlightened every night when we go into deep, dreamless sleep. According to Tilopa, "The appearances of the world are not the problem, it's clinging to them that causes suffering."

It makes a difference if we want to actually practice and realize the teachings. But few of us do. Objects, concepts, lights, sounds, maps, ideas, colors, and shadows are endlessly fascinating. Definitely ignorance from my POV. But YMMV.

Yes, that is the Tibetan.

For my POV, it depends on the school. The problem with Buddhism is that it is not a single tradition. There are unifying principles, such as the Four Dharma seals, but the terms vary from tradition to tradition. So it depends on whether we are dealing with Sravaka schools (such as Theravada), Mahayana Sutra schools (such as Yogacara and/or Madhyamaka), Tantra schools, and if so which one (Gelug, Kagyu, Nyingma, Shakya, Bon, Jonang) or Dzogchen (Bon or Nyingma, because they have different terms). So from the Goenka tradition, which is Theravada, there is no alaya vijnana. Rather, depending on the specific tradition, different schools explain things differently. The alaya vijnana generally appears only in Mahayna schools. In Nyingma, it is generally associated with ignorance. In Kagyu, alaya may refer to Buddha nature. So if you take bits from different schools, it creates a bit of a problem.

It sounds like he/she/they is referring to Theravada style vipassana.

Exhausting the alaya one "seed" at a time would take forever. Most Buddhist vehicles have a fundamental approach to cutting at the root of the problem, which is ignorance. How that is accomplished depends on the tradition. Sounds a bit mixed up. What tradition are you practicing? Are you learning from a lineage, or DITY?

Well, again, I think you're being a bit black and white about this. It is not one or the other. There are gradations and shades of grey, as with all things. However, the issue here is unfalsifiability. If you present a premise that cannot be falsified, i.e. tested, then the proposition is basically a dogma--- merely to be accepted or believed. So you can "see" whatever pattern you want, and then when some one disagrees, you can say that they do really see the big picture. This was a common way Marxists and Freudians handled objections to their theories-- if you did not agree, it was because you were too repressed (Freud) or brainwashed by capitalist culture (Marx) to see things as they really are. How is this different than saying, "if you don't agree, it is because you've been successfully manipulated by the conspiracy?"

I feel the same way. Spirituality is definitely not for the ambitious, at least in my experience.

I had the same hang ups. However, what I quickly realized that a teacher was a short-cut. A teacher has not only gone down the path, but if a part of a lineage also has the combined experience of thousands of yogis to draw on to help. I think if some one is serious about the path, they would certainly seek out a teacher sooner rather than later. The number of mistakes and errors we make are countless, and the sooner you connect with a genuine teacher, the less time you have to spend undoing past errors. From a Buddhist point of view, we already have connections to one lineage or another based on prior lives. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly appears to be true. Once you find the right tradition, it really opens everything up.

Probably better if people don't try to still their thoughts, but rather learn to relax with thoughts.

Shiva? The God of Yogis? The divine being? Primordial consciousness? I would think more an emanation of Azathoth, the blind idiot god of Chaos.

Personally, I think he's too self-absorbed to care what happened before he was born. I don't think he's anti-flu per se, but he doesn't like how it is affecting the economy and his chances at re-election. I don't also doubt there is a vanity/comfort component (masks don't look/feel good). I thought Gary Lachman's book "Dark Star Rising" was an interesting study on the occult beliefs and right wing politics. He spends a lot of time with Trump's background in New Thought, which praises the "power of positive thinking," and, in many cases, ignoring cold hard facts.

It probably depends. old3Bob spend a lot of time in the Hindu section so I would imagine that his/her/their interpretations skew in one direction (although old3bob has also mentioned that he/she/they doesn't really follow a tradition-- I suppose he/she/they can clarify). As a Buddhist, my interpretations skew toward the "rudderless," and direction depends on the being. I would say in my view, most beings are directed toward happiness, but ignorance confuses us as to how that is achieved. For some, that means piling up wealth and protecting the current body. For others, this may mean helping others by aiming at Buddhahood.

I think this is something of a false dichotomy. It is not conspiracy theory vs. love of the U.S. ruling class. Conspiracy theories are a distraction, one of the myriad ways people split off from one another. Typically at the center of a conspiracy theory is a group of elites that are secretly manipulating the world. The Rothschilds, the Bildebergs, the Freemasons, the Jews, Reptilians, etc. Politically morphed, it becomes the supposed scientific industrial complex which is trying to convince us that global warming is real because, well, huge profits in climate change I guess (as opposed to oil and gas?). Vaccines are a form of mind control. Experts are wrong because we don't like what they say. But there is no conspiracy. It is all done open and publicly if we bother to look. It is done through political contributions, for example. In the U.S., some of the largest donors fund both parties. It is done through trade policies and lobbyists. It is done through the World Bank. It is done through social and cultural institutions that have developed over time, through habit. But tales of laws and policies are boring. We want cartoon villains. We want cabals. On an individual level, it is mental habits that further self-centeredness, greed, hatred, and delusion. We like the idea of secret cabals because it helps us grasp onto some external villain and project our problems elsewhere. It allows one to claim "awakening" by grasping a particular set of concepts rather than being forced to do the hard work on one's self.