forestofclarity

The internet is good at providing little squirts of thoughts/feelings to work with.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive--- there are plenty of scholar warriors and scholar yogis out there, not that I would rate myself among them. But plenty of religious people don't like to consider evidence outside of their particular tradition or a determined set of authorities, so that's cool too. I am something of a contrarian.

Part of it is a matter of expectations. People expect spiritual teachers to match a certain internal set of rules. The problem is, you as an unawakened student must judge a teacher. Damo Mitchell said that in Chinese medicine, you have two types of people: sages and unhealthy, deranged people. If we are deranged, how do we fairly judge another's sanity (or lack thereof)? We filter everything through our patterns of ignorance. Without total information, how does one measure what is harm? Not to say that we should not use what discrimination we have, because that is the other extreme. I think freeform is right about signs of progress, but the most important signs I would think (in my deranged, non-sage mind) should be self-applied.

The answer may be in this book. I picked it up some years on kindle ago but never read it. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Shape-of-Ancient-Thought/Thomas-McEvilley/9781581152036

But unless one is a Buddha, one never knows. I was listening to a lama I trust talking about this just the other day. She pointed out that morality is largely a matter of culture. When my parents were young, severe physical punishment was meted out even by schools. When I was a kid, this was abuse, but spanking was ok. Now millennials say that spanking and harsh words is abusive. According to her, a lot of Tibetans would not have a problem with teachers sleeping with their students so long as they weren't monks. A lot of them reportedly liked to get drunk and do crazy things, like smash holes in walls to pull out termas. Some of them chase their students with axes. Crazy stuff happens. Bruce is a good example. He sets off every red flag in the book--- to a point (nothing like the above). If I had your cafe experience, I would have avoided him. I think 50% of the first live class quit after day one. But I actually met his students first, who are all hands down the nicest people I've ever met. People say he's money hungry, but I haven't seen that to be the case-- he lives modestly. He speaks arrogantly and rudely (and makes no effort to hide it), yet he is generous with his time and knowledge (and sometimes financially). And the practice! For me at this point in my life, it is invaluable-- it has definitely furthered my dharma in a watershed sort of way (which I confirmed on the dharma side of the house). Of course, it may all end in disaster, which is ok. Disasters are helpful, too. Interesting. For Tibetan Buddhists, when you're going through the bardo of dying, you have a chance to rest in the nature of mind, the dharmata, which is what leads to tukdam. This happened in a U.S. hospital in the 1980's to the Karmapa. His heart was reported to be physically warm after three days. I've heard a number of first hand accounts that I trust, although I have not witnessed this myself. It is also said that if you meditate with the dying person, you may be able to experience the state itself.

Sorry to spam the board, but this thread is so interesting! It is interesting, because in Tibetan Buddhism, teachers may be peaceful or wrathful. In this thread, I presume a wrathful teacher would not be considered as having developed sufficient Ming, especially teachers who come from different cultures. In some regards, a wrathful teacher can be more beneficial since they can quickly shred or dissolve a student's obstacles. Such actions are well coded in ancient Tibetan and Chan/Zen stories, and many modern teachers have similar tales. If a teacher is peaceful, I have noticed that students often become very complacent, even to the point of not practicing. On the other hand, teachers who are more wrathful are widely condemned, even though many of their students experienced genuine spiritual cultivation (i.e. Trungpa). Trungpa could be a bear, but nearly every long term student of his who still practices is a genuine, usually open hearted person, kind, compassionate person (I live in North Denver and spend quite a bit of time in Boulder). I find it can be a hard balance--- a teacher can be so peaceful the student is never challenged. On the other hand, wrathful teachers can fall over into abuse. A very complex issue.

Do Taoists have tukdam (remaining is a suspended state for days or weeks after death)?

These accounts of awakening as you describe in these posts are fairly well documented in a variety of different literature, starting at least with William James' the Varieties of Religious Experience. However, I am skeptical that these are permanent awakenings -- most people who report these experiences inevitably backslide into their old habits. For some it may be days, weeks, months, years, but usually there is a backslide. Back in the day, I knew a man who "walked with God" for ten years. But it left and he was completely distraught. Nathan Gill is a good example on the "modern" non-duality side. He claimed to have a permanent awakening, but suffered awful pain and despair to the point where he was no longer able to handle it. I think part of spiritual practice is to "prepare the ground" so that when awakening arises, it doesn't just dissolve away like the proverbial bad seed on bad ground. There is a saying among Dzogchen yogis: Experiences are like the mist, they dissolve. What I have found is many people have a profound, temporary shifts, but tend to lose them and spend a lot of time trying to regain, replicate, or copy the experience. Of course, I am always open to thoughts about this. I would be curious if you have a Taoist explanation for the phenomenon.

Well, that's a strong statement. I'm not a Shaivite, but to say the sources have "absolutely no bearing" is a bit much. There is plenty of evidence of the overlap between the two Tantras, and even evidence that Shaiva Tantras and practices were often incorporated into Buddhism by merely changing the names. Not that I expect to change any minds. http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis https://www.academia.edu/3621440/The_Śaiva_Age_The_Rise_and_Dominance_of_Śaivism_during_the_Early_Medieval_Period._In_Genesis_and_Development_of_Tantrism_edited_by_Shingo_Einoo._Tokyo_Institute_of_Oriental_Culture_University_of_Tokyo_2009._Institute_of_Oriental_Culture_Special_Series_23_pp._41-350 https://www.academia.edu/24115448/_Converting_the_Ḍākinī_Goddess_Cults_and_Tantras_of_the_Yoginīs_between_Buddhism_and_Śaivism_

TL/DR: Is Taoism as practiced generally realistic (i.e. saying everything is real), idealistic (everything is consciousness) or something else? Background: In Buddhism as I’m familiar with it, there is a tradition of Cittamatra or “Mind Only.” This can have two meanings: 1) that everything is mind, or 2) that everything we know is an expression of mind. In philosophy, the first would be an ontological statement, meaning it is a statement about what things are or made of. The second is an epistemological statement, meaning that while everything arises as a transformation of consciousness, no further statement is made as to what happens outside of experience. In the second case, it isn’t relevant. The drawback to the ontological position is that it leaves many things unexplained. Traleg Kyabon Rinpoche uses the example of some one who is asleep and has their head crushed by a falling rock. If no one is around, the conscious being is asleep and completely unaware, how could this happen? Some responses to this include a broad diffusion of consciousness (everything is conscious) or positing a larger consciousness (God, which was Berkeley’s solution). The Buddhist scholar/practitioner Douglas Duckworth makes a strong case in my mind that the general approach is to say that everything is ontologically empty, but epistemologically consciousness. Mipham, the lion of the Nyingmas, says that relatively, Cittamatra is correct (with the exception that the mind is not truly established, which isn’t necessarily a Cittamatra position IMHO), while ultimately, everything is empty. The Buddhist approach seems to demote the waking state (which we may take as real) into the dream state (which we don’t). Hans-Georg Moeller in Daoism Explained claims that the Taoists do the opposite—they regard the dream and waking state as both authentic, or real. In this way, they would promote the dream state into the same position as the waking state. Is he right? What would the Taoist position be in your experience?

In the traditions I have studied, the two truths are provisionally separated, but ultimately unified. If you google two truths and union or indivisible, you will find a lot of teachings on that. If you follow the logic of emptiness, it must be the case. If everything is empty, how do you separate this and that? There is no basis upon which a line, boundary, or separation may be erected. The flip side of emptiness (as per Nagarjuna) is interdependence, a.k.a. dependent origination. Because everything is empty, everything is connected and interrelated. The point is not to eliminate phenomenon, but to cease from clinging and grasping onto phenomenon. Freedom from, not elimination. You can apply this experientially. Look to see if there are any boundaries, lines, or separations in the field of experience. Sometimes I may think or feel there is a boundary, but closer inspection shows it is an illusion. Usually, what is perceived as a border is actually a point of contact--- not a separation, but a coming together. This usually requires setting aside what I expect to see, and actually look. Indian Buddhist texts may not appreciate nature, but Zen Buddhists of all stripes (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese) do. When teachers teach this stuff, they are usually very concrete. There is actually a Shaiva Tantra technique where you use taste and aesthetic appreciation as a way to "trace back the radiance" so to speak.

You're right. I reread it and changed it.

I'll admit, when people are like Buddhism is x, and Taoism is y, their description of Buddhism sounds off but their description of Taoism sounds very Buddhist. Buddhism and Platonism are largely opposites (unless you learn Buddhism from W.Y. Evans-Wenz or some other early 20th century Western scholar), so much so that I cannot imagine trying to learn both. Philosophically, Buddhism would be more akin to Existentialism and Phenomenology, but those branches are so distorted it would be hard to draw anything but the broadest similarities. Emptiness is not some sort of eternal Platonic God, but rather the lack of such permanent, independent, unitary thing (see my signature for the definition of emptiness). Nor is emptiness apart from phenomenon--- form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form, that which is form is emptiness, etc. per the Heart Sutra. Form and emptiness interpenetrate, and everything is constantly shifting. I think people somewhat unfairly lump Indian based religions together, but largely forget there are mutliple primary sources in India, including the Tantras. Tantric Shaivism, and Tantric Buddhism which emerged at the same time/place, do not reject phenomenon in the way you describe, quite the opposite. Phenomenon is not separate from mind, but rather is an expression of it. You don't study and believe this, you explore your own experience first hand to see if this is true through various methods including meditation, becoming familiar with waking/dreaming/deep sleep, etc. The Tantric traditions are first and foremost experiential, and not at all conceptual. Further, Tantra always works heavily with the body. For me, I prefer not to think in "-isms" but in terms of experience. Tantra plus ancient China = Chan. Zhuangzi was considered a Chan master and is cited as such. My issue with Buddhism are the bodily methods. Not to say they are wrong, but I have a resistance or an allergy to them. They tend to involve imagination, strong openings/closings, breath holdings, lots of mantras, etc. They can cause problems, and often do not always give what I call the "healthy Taoist glow." Many, many Buddhist masters have severe hip and knee problems from so much sitting. I don't think a lot of them are for householders like me. Plus, I have received so much more benefit from months of Taoist practice as I have from years of Buddhist practice in that area.

You may disagree, but it was what I was taught. Perhaps your teachers are different. What I found striking was the agreement of teachers from two traditions: Shaiva tantra and Vajrayana. The most thorough explanation came from Shaiva tantra. In that tradition, the mantra is the sound body of a deity. Apparently, Abhinavagupta wrote that a mantra was not unlike a statute of a deity. If the statute is not properly consecrated and infused with prana, then the statute is not "living" so to speak. Similarly, a mantra needs to be infused by the power of some one who it has awakened for. Otherwise, the mantra is dead and is not, in fact, the sound body of the deity. Accordingly, it could not be transmitted via writing. I imagine the problem is compounded if one is trying to learn a mantra but is not familiar with the language of that mantra (e.g. Sankrit, Tibetan, etc.). It makes sense, because these things were oral traditions long before they were written down. I think there is a lot of resistance to the idea that we need to learn these things from other people. But people can do what they like.

It’s experiential, not conceptual.

That makes sense. I suppose you can pick anywhere on the spectrum, and say "everything is..." You could say that matter is a gross form of consciousness, or consciousness is a subtle form of matter, or they are both just manifestations of neither consciousness nor matter. Would you say that there is no separation between, say, waking and sleeping, or mind and body? Interesting. Well I don't think most people hold to that position. A Buddhist might say that because the bladder is empty, it can be emptied. If it were not empty (of an independent, unitary, and permanent self), it would always and forever be full with no change possible. Change is experienced first hand, so it is not just an idea in the head or a belief to be accepted.

Yes, but it wouldn't work unless you got the appropriate transmissions, etc. See my post above.

I don't know why people think that condescending comments and personal insults will make their point. I think you've done pretty well in the face of it. Typically, insults and ad hominems come when a person is unable to articulate their reasons behind their position. But the thing you are forgetting is homeostasis. Homeostasis means your body/mind adapts to specific conditions. For example, if you sit on the couch all day eating junk food, your body and mind is going to adapt to that. So when you put down the junk food or try to exercise, there is an entire echo system of physical and mental habits that will rise up to resist you. In this case, you will often face less physical and mental resistance short term if you remain as you are: laying on the couch eating bad food. Accordingly, what may feel right or natural is not right or natural-- it is just how the body/mind has adapted. I've seen this time and again in various body arts classes, and of course, in myself. The teacher will show a posture, and everyone inevitably adapts the posture to match their own physical/mental habits. They end up distorting the posture, which is why you need the teacher to provide you feedback. This is why you need an element of trust--- it may "feel" wrong for some time, but once you have overcome your poor prior habits, you find how much better off you are. If you've ever quit an addictive substance, you will know exactly what I mean.

The Tibetans have a very rich inner body tradition, but it is described differently. They have quite a bit of body based practices, contrary to some opinions. There you would have prana, bindus, and nadis, 5 chakras that are correlated with the 5 skandhas, etc. There is also tummo, various forms of yoga, and all manner of practices. It is not uncommon for practitioners to remain in a state of suspended death for anywhere from an hour to several days or weeks (tukdam). More rare is the reported "rainbow body." Zen and Theravada also have some inner body work, but you typically have to look a bit harder.

Actually, your description here is not far off from what I have experienced via Buddhism. I put "habitual thinking mind" because in Buddhist practice I am familiar with, we do use the mind in other ways. One easy example is in Theravada practice, you develop concentration by focusing on the breath, and then go through your body bit by bit looking to see if there is anything permanent, satisfactory, or a self. In certain Tibetan Buddhist circles, there are similar meditations that are preparatory, and perhaps a series of experiential "pointing out" instructions and practices. Zen has koans, not unlike what you presented above. They have similarities, but often work differently with different emphases and areas of focus. A huge obstacle in my mind is that people often do not actually perform any experiential inquiry, because they think they already have or have heard the answer. I came across a quote the other day that I can no longer find--- it said that there must be emptiness before the Tao can gift its benevolence. Relaxing, opening, not directing--- these seem to be the keys.

For me, my mind has formed strong habits of grasping. With your question, the first part (When you try to find/identify who you are, in a fraction of a second, without thinking) is an invitation to set aside thoughts and take a look. But the second part, (what do you get?) is an open invitation for the habitual thinking mind to get right back involved. The thinking mind doesn't even have to really be invited, it loves to get involved, and of course it loves to pretend it is not involved. Even worse, the thinking mind likes to make "thought images" of experiences, and it likes to pull those out either as a replacement for, or a map for further experiences. For example, let's say we were watching a sunset, and I was facing East. You say, look over here to the West. I turn around and see the sunset. Then I may start mentally talking about the sunset (oh those colors are so pretty! Reminds me of fire. Like fiery sunsets when I was a kid. Or a dragon. Puff the magic dragon. Whatever happened to that show? I used to watch it all the time. I wonder what's on TV now. I wish I was at home watching). Or I may make a mental image of the sunset. The colors are just so due to the clouds, the mountains, and so on. I will then use this image either to overlay on future sunsets I see. Perhaps I will not even see the sunset, but only this mental image, or I may see the sunset with the mental image flickering on top of it like an overlay. Perhaps in future sunsets, I will ignore the differences, and only focus the similarities, thereby molding present experience into line with past (reconstructed) memory. Maybe I won't even turn West, I will see the licks of crimson in the east, compare it to my mental image, and say "close enough. I AM seeing the sunset directly." Even worse, many people aren't even aware of this ongoing mental activity. Now replace the sunset with something more subtle or formless (like awareness), and it gets much, much worse (in my experience). Of course, the habits can be reduced with time and practice (Thankfully! The habitual thinking mind is exhausting once one is aware of it!). But the habits can be quite deep, and very subtle.

It is hard not to grasp at words--- same with phenomenon. I guess that is why they call it pointing rather than telling. For me, it is a process of continual refinement. I enjoy the idea of refinement. In Tibetan, nang-jang--- refining perceptions. I suppose in Taoism I might call this "daily loss." It reminds me on when I first started tai chi, and I was told to relax. "I am relaxed!" I said. And I was compared to my normal mode of complete tension. But not really relaxed. And then I found what I thought was relaxed then wasn't really relaxed. And so on, as relaxation becomes more refined, what looked previously like relaxation had a tremendous amount of tension. I am sure that what I currently call "relaxation" will be further refined. Right now, the crux of my practice is working a certain kind of grasping called "needing to stabilize." That is what I am playing with here.

Oh no, I see the trap there! The head is a dragon, but the tail is a snake.

I have been looking for the self for a very long time. For me, phenomenon appear in the five basic types that also appear to our senses --- colors, sounds, feelings, etc. I have not experienced phenomenon that does not have one or some combination of these. Accordingly, I have encountered these aspects of what I may label a self--- a voice in the head (sound), thoughts (for me, thoughts are usually a combination of pictures (color) and feelings), or a feeling of self, i.e. a "sense of self." But I have never found a self behind these. The key for me is the feeling. The feeling of self. And all of these flicker constantly. So basically the illusion is that I "feel" that I am something that I experience-- but how could that be the case? It would be like saying the eye is the table. Anyway, just thinking aloud.

I mean, I don't see how unconditioned awareness would just vanish because conditioned phenomenon is arising. It seems to me that the problem is focusing on the phenomenon rather than its presence or absence, or that’s how I’ve been instructed. I may be wrong.