forestofclarity

Judging another's inner state is always fraught with peril. And people can seem calm or happy in some situations, but quickly fall apart in other situations. A lot of strong practitioners had a hard time handling, for example, incarceration and torture. Most of us will face the challenge of old age, sickness, and death, and it is here we find whether our practice has been in vain. In Tibet, there are always stories of the seemingly normal person who displayed great power at death. And keep in mind that for many of us, this is not a one lifetime sort of practice. Also, we don't know how people would have been without practice. Although I am a very lazy practitioner (not being modest), I have no doubt that without dharma, I would be dead or a drug addict/alcoholic. So it is hard to judge without seeing the big picture. Having said that, the big issue with Taoist/qi practices is that it is so difficult to find even a competent teacher. I agree that a mind-based practice is incomplete, but they are easier to transmit and generally less likely to cause harm (not to say that they are harmless, of course). My own speculation re: the Mahasi method is that it tends to quickly give rise to meditative experiences, which of course people mistake for enlightenment. The issue with many DIY arhats is that their enlightenment is too small. I've heard too many so-proclaimed arhats carry on like jerks, complain about their lack of money, their depression, their numerous and unending psychological issues, etc. Just rambling, like Anshino

Ha ha, so true! This is consistent with how I learned this from Theravada teachers. It is interesting that your Soto school teaches jhana. Do you mind if I ask what tradition? I misread your post--- my Buddhist prejudices are showing! I thought you wrote you permanently removed the separation between the witness consciousness and body/mind. Experientially, I have gone in the opposite direction--- the solidity and separateness diminishes, and the sense of a self/center/witness (which for me was primarily behind the eyes, then in the head, then in the body) tends to dissolve.

I would be curious to hear what you find to be the experiential difference between the two states. Might be a different topic, though.

I don't think this is a view shared in the Nyingma Dzogchen realm, as revealed by my teachers. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche considers external renunciation as a Sutra level approach, and has written plainly: Dzogchen, The Self Perfected State p.33. Cortland Dahl, a senior student of Mingyur Rinpoche, concurs: The Nine Yanas, https://learning.tergar.org/2011/11/18/the-nine-yanas/ In addition, there are many root tantras and instructions given to Kings and Queens who were not in a position for external renunciation, which is one of the mythical reasons the Tantras were taught. Of course, many Nyingma lamas made their living in old Tibet performing worldly rituals, and often did/do so for themselves. A Step Away from Paradise is a good oral history on this front. Not to mention that Yuthok Nyingthig was developed for lay doctors not only to develop spiritual enlightenment, but to make them better physicians.

Is that what it's saying? If you look to the matrix of Tantra in ancient India, it rejected the notion of "pure" and "impure" aims that were common to more renunciate traditions. Many Tibetan monks, especially heads of monasteries, are extremely wealthy, and tend to their wealth as it often supports many. In addition, there are literal Tantric rituals aimed at accumulating wealth (also longevity, etc.), so...

I would tend to agree with the Theravadin teacher, but add some context. Shamatha and vipassana as practiced by a certain school of Theravdins (who adhere to "hard jhanas") doesn't make sense outside of the monastic context. I started with Theravada, but it became clear that the most serious adherents were monks. However, the tradition of "hard jhanas" arises out of the Abhidhamma commentaries and is not based in the Suttas (supposedly the original sayings of the Buddha). Nevertheless, most of the Suttas regarding meditation of course are aimed at monks, so I think the position is not without basis. As a side note, there is some compelling evidence that all or nearly all of modern Theravada meditation techniques were redeveloped only in the 1800's when Westerners came asking, so who knows. Every Buddhist lineage claims their own as the most original, best, direct from the Buddha, so I would take these claims with a grain of salt. There are other Buddhist approaches that are not grounded in renunciation. For example, there are also Tantric approaches in Buddhism in which one need not give up the world. In fact, some would argue that the Tantric forms were developed for householders specifically. This form of Buddhism you will find in Tibetan forms, but I would argue also in Chan and Zen forms.

The key point in Buddhism of course is not a level of energetic development, but prajna, or wisdom. However, energy cultivation or the development of jhanas may assist in the development of prajna, but it is neither absolutely necessary nor sufficient beyond a very basic level (even if you read traditional Pali suttas/commentaries). I would say that proper energy cultivation can help strengthen the body and calm the mind, which can be useful for spiritual practice. In addition, there are certain "side effects" that can help loosen one's sense of a solid, material world. Almost every Buddhist teacher I have had has had some sort of body based practice (yoga, qigong, etc.). In addition, Taoist practices develop mindfulness, concentration, etc. which are useful in Buddhist practice. I have found personally that regular Buddhist practice also affects the subtle body. Accordingly, developing states of concentration can spontaneously open one's energy body. In addition, there are energetic effects to insight--- it is not like there is a separation between mind, subtle body, and the physical body.

From the Shaivites, if you follow Alexis Sanderson.

I would argue Tantric rather than Vedic personally.

The Daobums Thread Devlolutionary Syndrome. It usually happens around page 3-4, and totally triumphs by page 9-10.

Not per Tibetan Buddhism. You can reach full Buddhahood in the bardo of clear light. In fact, it is stated that it is easier without the limitations of the body. Nor is Nirmanakaya is limited to the physical body. Finally, many masters states that if one is focused on the key principle, then the body spontaneously transforms. The problem as I see it is that from a Buddhist POV, anything that arises will pass, because it is conditioned and depends on causes and conditions. Even the so-called immortal gods die. The only exceptions through the scriptures are space and nirvana. I don't think there is an attachment against transforming the physical body, but it is stated in many scriptures that transformation of the physical body may be unrelated to enlightenment. Physical cultivation when used is typically viewed as a means (to cultivate wisdom) rather than an end.

Most people do. I've found that few traditions outside of the India take seriously the problem of epistemology (how we know what we know). But if you really push the inquiry, nearly everyone finds that the whole mechanism breaks down outside of direct experience.

I don't think it is possible to ever truly verify whether some one else is enlightened (whatever one means by that, the definition varies). There is a Zen saying that even the teacher appears in the mirror of the student, so any manifestation of another's enlightenment is arising in one's own mind. So at best, one can attempt to infer that some one else is enlightened, but as an inference is it always subject to doubt.

I don't think you can ever really know for sure, but you can tell whether a teaching helps you. I have been learned that there are three main things: 1. The teaching of the teacher 2. The teaching of the tradition, usually in the form of scriptures and commentators 3. Personal experience These keep each other in check. If the teacher does not align with the tradition or your experience, then you should find another. If your thoughts of accomplishment do not accord with the teacher and the tradition, you're likely delusional. And the scriptures/commentaries are dead letter unless they come to life in the living experience of yourself and the teacher. I would also add that as a Buddhist, I have been taught generally to look for an increase in compassion over time, and a decrease in suffering.

This is an interesting question that I think we can all relate to. Let me toss some thoughts: It seems to me the problem is ignorance rather than fear. I don't see anything wrong with fear generally--- it is a set of reactions designed to keep us alive. In a road rage situation, getting attacked, run off the road, or shot at is always a possibility. So I don't agree that a fear reaction is necessarily unwise. There is no way to know whether the encounter is going to be violent or not. If you assume it will be, and it isn't, you haven't lost anything. But if you presume it will not be, and it is, then there's a big problem. From a certain sense, fear is an evolutionary tool that has emerged to keep us safe. (FWIW, I have a no interactions policy with road rage. If some one is angry, I don't interact with them at all, because usually the rage is a result of an escalation that happens when there is some communication.) This is different than say sitting at home if we live is a relatively safe place worrying about a serial killer breaking in and murdering us. Or if we fear death because we think we are the body, or we believe ourselves to be separate from the world or something. But these are ignorance problems, and once the ignorance is removed, what arises is a fuller, unhidered expression of the Dao.

I thought this might be of interest to some here. https://non-duality.rupertspira.com/meet/2020/10/31/webinar-with-rupert-and-swami-sarvapriyananda#details

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Much of my practice is about unlearning things.

It is not just these two, but probably 85% of spiritual teachers from meditative traditions teach the same thing. I don't think it is based on a philosophy, but rather experience. From a Buddhist POV, it makes sense. Anything that begins must end. Anything that arises is based on conditions, and when the conditions cease, the appearance also ceases. Accordingly, basing one's peace and happiness on temporary arisings leads to one's peace and happiness also being temporary. Per the teachers, we must find a firmer foundation. I've found this to be true. I find that I am far more happy when I have a more spiritual orientation and focus on self-enquiry types of practices. I think a large part of the struggle is having enough confidence in the teaching.

Mere claims and statements should never be enough. However, I don't agree that religious and spiritual traditions rely on mere statements. I would say in particular the Indic traditions (Vedanta, Buddhism, etc.) are very much experientially based traditions. However, there is a small but growing body of scientific research checking into supernatural claims. A good start is this study compiled by the University of Virginia. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/book/mind-beyond-brain-buddhism-science-and-the-paranormal/

This is an odd time. This year, the world has been literally on fire. The sun is dimmed from the smoke, all the way to Eastern Colorado. There is a pandemic. There was a hurricane in the middle of the United States. Hurricanes are more frequent and intense. We are in a post-factual world, titling toward fascism. Guns and ammo are sold out. People believe a satanic cult is running the world because of internet posts on 8chan. Politicians are robbing from the poor to give to the rich. When I was in high school reading Animal Farm, I thought "At least this could never happen in this day and age." Wow, was I ever wrong. Despite all of this, I feel fine (even though I feel a lot of sympathetic suffering). Part of it is due to a combination of good choices, good luck and undeserved privilege. A large part of it is due to practice. I thoroughly recommend strong spiritual convictions, of any kind. Living without them seems heartbreaking. I think a lot of Victor Frankl here: “Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.”

The Lovecraft mythos capture perfectly the modern times for me. It seems to be a blend of modern scientific materialism and consumerist materialism. The idea of a blind, godless universe ruled by demonic forces that are hostile to mankind, and humanity itself seeking to bring these destructive forces to manifestation is not unlike our own drive to consume the planet and destroy ourselves. The central figure here is not a kind, benevolent creator deity but a deaf, dumb, blind god of randomness. Truly, the only sane approach in such a world is madness. Similarly, institutional and systematic racism as is as senseless as it is intertwined with American culture. "Othering" seems to be so fundamental to humanity, given how widespread and popular it is (racism, sexism, ableism, anti-LGBTQ, colorism, etc. the list is endless. Like Lovecraft's cults, it is a deeply embedded part of our existence, it is very self destructive, and it should drive us mad.

Actually, your arguments are weigh against a reality that exists independently of any observer. The different beings observe different appearances suggests that these appearances, far from being solid and real, and in fact illusory (or magical).

I would actually be curious about what you learned about eyesight improvemenet, but that is for another thread. Going off of @steve's point, there is actually no three dimensional "space" in the photo--- the photo is really a two dimensional representation, a flattening, of objects and space. The 3-D space here is created by the mind. It is an illusion (i.e. you can't store your coffee cups in the space next to the cow). So are you "noticing" the space, or creating it (if you like, co-creating it with the photo)?

I followed the rules and did not see the image. However, after it was pointed out, I cannot unsee it. It is sort of like those magic eye things, which are always hard for me (I have issues with depth perception.) The image arose out of the muddles colors almost like the image of a dream forming. But unlike those magic eye things, it remains. For me, this is a perfect lesson in reifying perception. At first, you are just presented with a swirl of color. Then, when you are able to "grasp" at a the pattern, the image appears and looks like an object.

It looks like an old photo, or what I have no idea. No objects jump out. It just looks like dark colors in one corner, some light colors in the middle, and a sort of blur of colors in the lower right. It looks sort of like an abstract painting, or something you'd see in a microscope.