forestofclarity

Umm, yeah.

Scott Adams, the cartoonist who created Dilbert, did a podcast with Sam Harris. He said that Trump speaks truth to the way people feel, and that accordingly, facts were not as important. This struck me as an astute observation. I would agree that a lot of media seems aimed at making people feel a certain way, and usually negative since it draws people in. I remember reading some time ago the book Amusing Ourselves to Death. As I recall, the author laid out how media (then the 1980's) was shifting away from providing relevant information to one's life (like the old local daily papers) to becoming "infotainment." For infotainment, the emotional/entertainment qualities are enhanced, and the useful informative parts are removed. I feel like this is exactly how things played out.

This is not weird at all. I think factual relativism is a logical outgrowth of post-structuralism and post-modernism, which has dominated the intellectual arena at least for 40 years or more. Trump is just the populist version.

What is sad about conspiracy theories is that they detract form real issues, such as environmental degradation and wealth inequality. Let's get up in arms about the government trying to get you to wear a mask, but let's forget all about the "Great Divergence" of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/07/6-facts-about-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s/ https://www.vox.com/2016/5/23/11704246/wealth-inequality-cartoon

I liked those articles. There has been a lot of research into how we look for patterns (especially faces--- evidently we may be hardwired to see faces because seeing a face that isn't there is ok, but missing a face that is there can be deadly). Adding to that that our primary use of logic and reason is to support the position we reach typically through non-logical methods, conspiracy thinking seems to be easy to pick up but hard to shed. But on the other hand, as a Buddhist, I know that things are not as they appear. I also know that things are very much connected (i.e interdependent). So this pervasive feeling that something's not quite right has a basis. And this feeling that there is more going on than meets the eye is also founded. And as you point out, the complete institutional failure of... well... just about everything plays right into it.

I am giving this thread the seriousness it deserves.

Comedies and horror don't tend to age well. We watched Poltergeist, which as I recall, was a terrifying movie when I was a kid. My son (age 13) kept asking, "I thought this was supposed to be scary?" We tried Christmas Vacation last Christmas, but it was unwatchable. Action movies on the other hand hold up with a raw energy not often seen today. The Terminator was roundly enjoyed by all, although the special effects (thankfully rare) were terrible. It made me spontaneously remember when I was a kid and my friends and I would exclaim "that's so fake!" Back to the Future and Raiders of the Lost Ark have passed the Gen Z test, as have some of the top James Bond movies (Goldfinger, From Russian With Love). There is something about practical effects that we don't see much of anymore.

I am so, so, so sorry. My son and I tried to watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail a few months ago. We agreed it was among the worst 30-40 minutes of our lives. And I was asleep for most of it. I fear he may be scarred for life.

Anti-coffee propaganda. I will have none of it. Not the first time, either. Legend has it that in Europe, coffee was largely derided as the "devil's drink," suitable only for consumption by radicals. Until Pope Clement VIII tried it, and was so enamored of the drink, he "baptized" it for proper use.

Hmm. Ripping a new hole may indicate that one was insufficient to remove all the crap. Just kidding! Maybe your body just doesn't care for coffee.

I use organic decaf and it says it uses the Swiss Water Process.

Well, one must distinguish between spirituality and spiritual materialism. Spiritual materialism would be, in my mind, attempting to use spiritual practices in order to achieve specific results or effects. In my mind, this is the common mode of practice for many of us. Indeed, how it could be otherwise, with a lifetime or even countless lifetimes of established habit? In this light, the method of disciplined practice at a specific goal can be stressful. That was my mode of practice for a long time. As I practice more, I find that my practice is more softening and mellowing. I would call spirituality (for now anyway) is about opening, loosening, and letting go. In addition, it is also about awareness and seeing things as they are as they appear. The two aspects reinforce on another. It is interesting how this has affected by contemplation of death, something I typically do several times a day. Previously, contemplating death was kind of a downer. It was about ending, and the limitations of the things in life. Life seemed less important. But now, I see death as a special opportunity. In this way, what I do know in establishing habits of mind is a preparation for death, and to use the special opportunity for the benefit of all. Now life seems much more meaningful.

I think there is a Western fascination with "having it all." Material wealth, great sex and relationships, and total enlightenment. But really, I think this is a fantasy. There are some historical examples for nobility taking on spiritual practices and becoming great practitioners, but this tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Personally, I have found that the more I focus on spirituality, the less the other stuff seems to matter and the more it sorts itself out.

It depends--- there are many factors that go into the quality of sleep. There is no one size fits all. A lot of effects are due to caffeine consumption, use of electronics at or near bed, stress, mental health, use of drugs and alcohol, amount of light in the room, temperature, etc. If this is something that just started, then look and see what has changed in your day life. If this is an ongoing problem, you need to take a closer look at your life. Basically, something is disturbing your mind. Cleansox has a lot of good tips. I would add making sure the room is sufficiently dark and cool is often helpful. Don't drink caffeine 6 hours before bed and lay off of drugs and alcohol if possible.

Denver is about 5,000 feet. Colorado Springs is about 6,000 or so, and Manitou Springs is probably about 6,500.

In what context? In Madhyamaka Buddhism, void or emptiness means lacking inherent existence (i.e. an independent, unitary, unchanging essence). Both sound and silence would be "void" as they continually change into one another and are not fully distinct. What tradition are you drawing on?

I am not impressed with Western Zen based primarily on my own experiences. I am not impressed with Taizan Maezumi Roshi. I do judge masters by their conduct. As I said, anyone can claim anything. You may find hundreds of people who lay claim to enlightenment, but I doubt any of them have even reached the first Bhumi. Again, based on what I've encountered, I don't see the juice. Your mileage may vary, and I hope it does, because I would love nothing more than a large group of Westerners who were leading people to the end of suffering in one lifetime. I guess we'll see. If his students start going into thukdam, I may have to amend my opinion, but until then...

I don't have an issue with the dialectic approach. The issue I have is that they fail in my mind to exhibit even a basic fundamental knowledge of the mind or how it works. In many regards, they seem to be pushing a type of popular psychology, and they often rely on well-worn statements or quirks of logic. Often, they have had a passing experience as Adya points out, and then claim enlightenment. This usually comes across when they convey their enlightenment experience. Of course, in the Western nondual world, there is no criteria for enlightenment, so anyone can pretty much claim anything. Of course, I could be wrong and all these people may be launching into Buddhahood/moksha. But I doubt it.

I definitely have mixed feelings about Adyashanti. I think a large issue (which many consider a strength) is his lack of grounding in a tradition. Accordingly, while he speaks well (to a point), he doesn't seem able to lead others to the realization he himself has attained (disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with his definition of enlightenment either). He certainly lacks the length and breadth of practical techniques one would typically find in an established tradition, as well as the corpus of doubt settling commentaries. From the article: Of course, the tradition he is talking about is a very particular one: Western Zen. I do not disagree with his assessment. Yet I wonder how he would assess his own success rate, 16 years later, as a teacher. Certainly he has earned a good living, but has he been largely successful in awakening others? It seems he has certainly taught a certain rhetoric that many Adyashanti-inspired teachers mimic. However, these teachers strike me as a bit hollow. Even with the best teachers, I imagine the success rate is fairly low, due to the various capabilities of students.

I had to learn ZZ a few times (in person) to avoid putting pressure on my knees. I imagine the same sort of thing can be said for the ankles, the neck, shoulders, etc. Also, it is entirely possible to spend one's ZZ time becoming more clenches and stressed, which also would not be helpful (again, speaking from personal experience). People think the meditation posture is even safer than ZZ, but I know a lot of meditators that blew out their knees over time.

It is not interpersonal. Per HHDL, "Buddhism does not posit a universal or collective mind." Mind-streams are conventionally speaking, individual. From the Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra:

One Buddha? What do you mean? Is this a Chinese Buddhism thing?

It is pretty easy to discern which teaching is superior. The one you actually practice.

Or maybe its this one, its been a while: https://www.byomakusuma.org/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisAVisHinduVedanta.html

It is interesting that there is a parallel critique of Buddhism from the Vedanta/Tantra side-- i.e. that Buddhists get stuck meditating on the causal body and call this "emptiness"! I was thinking the same thing, Creation. In case Dwai or anyone else wants to take a crack at it: https://www.byomakusuma.org/EnlightenmentBuddhismVisAVisHinduism.html