forestofclarity

If you like cheesy 1980's inspired action comedies that are shamelessly over the top, then it's a great piece of pop culture. It also appears to be aware of its own ridiculousness, and does criticize some of its own tropes. My family and I DO happen to like cheesy 1980's inspired action comedies that are shamelessly over the top, so we've thoroughly enjoyed it. However, the best piece of cheesy, over-the-top martial arts movie about the (spiritual) path is Circle of Iron. Unfortunately, it stars David Carradine instead of Bruce Lee (who of course had died by then), which is a kind of sore spot given how the tv show "Kung Fu" panned out (i.e. Bruce pitching the Warrior about a martial artist in the old West, but then passed over the role for DC).

It seems to me that conceptuality is one extreme, and nonconceptuality is the other. It is fashionable in spiritual circles to deride words and concepts as meaningless or obstructing the truth. It strikes me that it is easy to bullsh!t oneself and hide behind inexpressibility. However, not everything that is inexpressible is the same. The taste of sugar and the taste of sour candy are inexpressible, but very different. The qualia "red" and the taste of sugar are also both inexpressible, but quite different. There are a few ways I've seen conceptuality addressed in a reasonable way. One is by using subtler and subtler concepts to lead one to conceptuality. In Vedanta circles, this is often illustrated by using tree branches to point to bright stars, and using bright stars to lead one to a subtle, dimmer star. This happens with Tibetan Buddhism by leading the student through different vehicles or yanas. The other is using concepts as a pointer. I got a very real taste of this with Zen meditation. In Zen, I realized everyone was doing something different on their cushion. Some people were just thinking. Some people were resting in thinking. Some people would sink into a dull trance. Some people would develop fixed concentration and develop concentrative states.However, these are all nonconceptual states, but none are what Zen was pointing to. Yet using my words, most meditators will know what I am referring to. To me, this is the real value of Indo-Tibetan sources-- they have found a way to point to the inexpressible quite precisely.

My probably unpopular opinion is that energy work isn't really a good idea for most people for some time. In some regards, it can be tossing gasoline on the fire if you have serious mental/emotional/physical issues. In my limited experience, I have noticed that people who tend to focus on the energy aspects often get more energy, but this only makes jerks into BIG jerks, arrogant people into REALLY arrogant people, and violent people MORE violent. Of course, this happened to me, and so I stopped energy practices for many years. Many people on this forum (again, including me) used to jump willy-nilly into whatever practice came along. I note that many people ended up burned by such an approach, and many of the seasoned folks now practice within a tradition. I am a Buddhist so the usual order is to first develop one's morals, then develop a calm and peaceful mind (relatively speaking) before increasing the wattage or amps one pours through the system. Starting with basic morality and mindfulness is often a good foundation, because these things tend to calm the mind to the degree that we can look and see what is going on. I would strongly recommend working with a living teacher rather than trying to give it a go from books or recordings. I don't know a single person who never made an error on the spiritual path--- some might say making errors IS the spiritual path. Having a teacher can really help ensure those errors don't mess you up. This can be especially important if you have mental, emotional, or physical illnesses, which everyone does to some degree.

I am sorry Limahong, but I have blocked you because I find your pictures/graphics fill up threads which makes the forum unreadable to me. Have you considered using them less?

I wanted to solicit thoughts on spontaneous qigong. My initial journey into tai chi and qigong involved the teachings of Sifu Wong Kiew Kit (WKK) some time ago. Per WKK, spontaneous qigong was the source of one's power. He taught that qi has a natural intelligence and it would seek out and fix your problems. I note that WKK taught primarily for health/martial arts. The spontaneous movements were more of an allowing --- I never felt strongly controlled by them although the more I relaxed into them, the stronger they got. When I was on an intense Theravada retreat some time later, I began to manifest spontaneous movements. I asked the teacher about it, Bhante Rahula, who told me not to give in to the movements but just keep doing the practice (Vipassana). I intentionally stopped the movements. I felt a strange sort of pressure building, and then a fabulous internal display of fireworks occurred as things started to open inside, including my legs. This permanently changed how much pain I felt while sitting. These movements were very strong--- while I could intentionally prevent them, it felt like some thing else was controlling my body. My anecdotal, uneducated theory is that the same energies can be externally expressed in spontaneous movements, or internally by opening channels and so on. If so, then it seems that spontaneous qigong might be good for martial arts (because it is about expressing) but not necessarily good for spiritual practices (which tend to use energy for more internal uses). I have not had a lot of teachings on this, so I thought I would see if anyone here had some thoughts and comments.

That would be nice. I appreciate it when translators include key terms in the back, or put them in parenthesis. I feel like I am constantly having to "untranslate" key terms so I know what they're talking about.

We are very good at disenfranchisement. Gerrymandering, purging voter rolls, prohibiting mail in ballots, etc. People like to talk about conspiracy theories, but the scary stuff is actually fairly out in the open.

I'm not sure how to even phrase my question: What do you think about it? or How do you feel about it? or How do you see it?

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?