forestofclarity

Are you doing energy practices also? If so, I'd advise some caution as this kind of practice can kick them into high gear.

I wasn't aware, but evidently Master Sheng Yen has a commentary: Faith In Mind: A Commentary on Seng Ts'an's Classic

There is one ritual, in particular, that has a nearly 100% success rate for me. I learned it from a random stranger I came across in the Phoenix Airport. I was on the tram to the airport when he struck up a conversation. He was a real ne'er-do-well, with a pocket full of IDs and a strong Irish accent. He had the confidence and air of a con man. He had a black eye, but I never asked about its origin. While I was walking through the airport with him, I prepared myself for the inevitable favor, request, or money donation I thought he was leading up to. It never came. For his part, he attempted to arrange for me a nice seat on the flight. He told the ticket teller (I found out later) that I had flight anxiety and would freak out if I couldn't sit up front. They put something on my ticket, but I never used it. In the interim, he taught me the St. Anthony prayer. It goes like this: St. Anthony, St. Anthony, come around My _______________ is lost, let it be found. Repeat 3x. I have used it many times. My son is constantly amazed. Anyone else have a high success, very useful ritual?

For me, the sense of being behind the eyes was a habit of mind due to a few things. For example, we tend to locate a focal point from our line of sight to a point behind behind the eyes in our skull. It is an imaginary point. There is a good exercise here to demonstrate:

One of my favorites. I've not been able to find a good commentary--- has anyone here?

Fair comment. As a rule, I would tend to agree. In order to attribute a win to St. Anthony, the object must truly be lost. As I said, regular efforts must be exhausted. In addition, the effect should be immediate and somewhat startling in its effectiveness. One example was my whole family looked for an item over a few days one weekend. As a unit, we probably spent at 6-8 hours looking for it. We presumed some one we had loaned it out to some one who forgot about it. After the prayer, I found the object within 30 seconds. And it wasn't in a place we hadn't looked--- we had carefully combed the exact area many times. It also didn't help that we were given the wrong description of the object. But once St. Anthony was invoked, the finding was immediate and shocking to all involved. This is fairly par for the course-- an exhaustive failed search, a simple invocation, and an immediate and startling reveal. I suppose it is possible that I tend to stop about 30 seconds too soon.

British--- yes. It should also be noted that I was raised Catholic. I don't know its limits. According to the person who provided it, he uses it to obtain things that he wants, lost or otherwise. I have mused that I should use it for spiritual purposes, but the occasion has not yet arisen. I do not typically turn to magic unless my ordinary efforts have been exhausted, this is one of my rules. I presume that any such use exhausts some amount of punya or positive karmic results. Finding lost things is rather minor, so I don't fret about it.

I would say don't buy into the Judeo-Christian shaming of sex. From a Buddhist perspective, if you are engaging in a safe, consensual relationship with another consenting adult (unlikely to cause harm to others like adultery) then you've met the precept. One issue in this case is that you're hiding it from your girlfriend. Having secrets is a good way to undercut or poison a relationship. In this case, you may want to have a talk with her. You may be surprised what she may be open to. Of course, she may not be open to anything, but if you don't talk to her you'll never know. You could discuss lighter aspects to see how she'd take it. She may even be willing to engage from time to time to make you happy. Sexuality can be tough because of the pleasure involved. Be careful as neurons that "fire together, wire together" so it is possible to tie pleasure to specific things, through repeated exposure, which I would recommend avoiding. This can develop certain habits and addictions if we're not careful. Perhaps the most important thing is to bring awareness to whatever you're doing. Usually that will help you develop the wisdom to handle the situation.

You can go extreme on either end--- too tight, or too loose. Reading Sri Sadhu Om, Swami Annamalai, and some of Ramana's writings, they seem pretty intent that one can (and should) only use self-inquiry. They don't seem to advocate first stilling the mind (i.e. like in some Buddhist traditions). Of course, Ramana was something of an exception since he was not classically trained in Vedanta. Swami Annamalai:

Sadhu Om comes down fairly strong against the practice, although he does say it may potentially be useful. His point is that using a phenomenal object (i.e. second/third person objects-- or objects of the senses and thoughts) trains the mind in its usual habit of fixating into objects. He says one should train concentration on the first person. When I first started, I trained quite a bit in hard concentration. This meant trying to limit one's attention to one point, usually a specific object (usually the breath). I found that this did lead to a certain inflexibility of the mind, and created lots of tension that took me many years to work out. I also felt very strongly that "I" was in the head, specifically behind the eyes. Again, it took a long time to refine this and dissolve the boundaries (an ongoing process). It is almost like trying to view the background by focusing on objects. What needs to happen, in my mind, is that the focus needs to be soft and open.

Interestingly, Michael James says that when he give up the ego, we obtain "eternal sleep." I heard Swami Dayananda make a similar statement, and there is a similar statement among some Theravada Buddhists (i.e. nirvana as cessation). Do you believe that the end state of a jnani is like deep, blissful, objectless sleep? For me, it seems a bit "all Shiva, no Shakti." Yes, I probably confounded them. I confound a lot of teachings. I am always amazed when I discover something, but it is something that the teacher has been repeating over and over. And I think: why didn't I just listen in the first place?

I would agree that it is difficult and also dangerous. When I was younger, I had a lot of habits from my Catholic upbringing. After years of practice, most of those habits have been dissolved. The good news is that they don't hamper of slow anything down, but the bad news is that they don't hamper or slow anything down. In the Buddhist world, it is said one should have the view as vast as the sky, but conduct as fine as barley flour. I think this is one of the reasons so many teachers run into problems--- it is not that they aren't far along the path, it is that at a certain point, what would have been a minor issue, in the beginning, can be a disaster. Once those barriers come down, if anger or desire or whatnot gets in, there's nothing to stop it.

You could say the same thing about Taoism. In modern society, you are more likely to go to a class and learn to breath slow and flap your arms than you are to find any substantial knowledge in your average Tai Chi or qigong class. Does that mean that Tai Chi or qigong is all slow breathing and arm flapping? Hardly.

I just finished re-reading the Path of Sri Ramana Part One by Sadhu Om. I read it initially 12-13 years ago. The strangest thing is that I have a fairly vivid memory of my first reading. In many ways, the ideas are the same. But ideas that I thought were important then seemed like sidelines now (i.e. the talk about the three digits to the right of the heart), and the parts I thought weren't central were very central (like relaxing and surrendering). It has given me a deep insight into karmic vision--- same book, same person (so to speak), two completely different takes. If old me and new me met here on this forum, we would certainly have a great deal of disagreement. My take then for most of Ramana's teachings was that the purpose was to fix and anchor on a feeling or sensation of "I am." This must be because of the cross-contamination from people who took bits and pieces of Ramana's teachings and fashioned them according to their own karmic vision. Reading it now, it jumps out at me how much of it is about not grasping and releasing fixation on phenomenon, all phenomenon. Just telling stories now, but I think the problem with Bhagavan's teachings it that they are quite advanced, and most students who encounter them encounter them too early. There is a fine line between profound and profane.

Almost the opposite, actually.

Here is what ChNNR has to say about the mirror (Crystal p. 99): This is not the same, IMHO, as the idea that the Self is reflecting off of objects (like light off of a mirror). However, YMMV.

Well this thread degraded quickly... 😵😱

For me, it makes sense, as a concept. This is a different thing than verified by experience. Have you ever seen an object apart from awareness? I have not. The idea presented here is that objects are somehow sitting out there, presumably colorless, soundless, etc. (those are all mental phenomenon), that awareness (which has no form or shape whatsoever) somehow goes out (through the eyes?), bounces off those objects like photons, and returns (via the eyes?). Awareness is formless--- it can't bounce or reflect off of objects. Objects, eyes, bodies, etc. all arise in awareness. So, from my POV, not only is the idea of reflectivity inferential (i.e. therefore it lacks corrigibility or certainty), but the whole thing cannot be directly experienced (as one would presumably have to be aware of objects prior to being aware of them).

This sounds more like nimitta, as a predecessor to jhana in the Visuddhimagga system (i.e. hard jhana).

Why not just call it that then, rather than come up with a clunky concept? This is the first explanation of Chidabhasa that I have heard that actually makes sense.

Doesn't WLP expect folks to be able to sit in meditation for four hours at a stretch? May not be the best path for many householders.

All teachings are thoughts, but some teachings point to direct experience and others do not. How experience arises (supposedly outside of experience) is one of those. One never experiences what occurs "behind the scenes" so to speak, experience always arises as it is. What happens outside of direct experience is no more than speculation in my view. Some of these speculations are more useful than others, of course, but usefulness has no necessary connection with truth. The mind (at least my mind, maybe others are different) likes to fixate and grasp. When confronted with "something" (words fail) that lacks reference points, it will often make one up (usually an experience, a thought, a sensation, even a perception).

Reflectivity seems like a clunky concept to me. I think I sort of get what is being talked about, but I am not comfortable using that label in direct experience. Reflectivity, at best, is an inference, and at worst it would be a mere concept. For me, it sounds like something is originating from somewhere, bouncing off of something else, and then returning to the originating source. I experience none of this except as a thought. Typically, when I imbibe Advaita, I like to take it from Swami Sarvapriyananda. I have also found Carol Whitfield (Radha) from Arsha Kulum to be helpful, and Michael James from Happiness of Being/Sri Ramana Teachings. You might want to check out those teachings as well. Of course, I am a Buddhist, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

The local center is going to start broadcasting classes online if people are interested. https://www.energyarts.com/tao-space#unique-features For the record, I am not on board with an entirely online program.

I think there is no division between internal and external, but I would not call them the same thing. Why? Function. I can sit on a chair, but I cannot sit on the thought or visualization of a chair.