forestofclarity

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

I am mainly a Buddhist practitioner, but BKF set up in my town last year. After some internal debate, I decided to give it a shot. I don't know about martial ability, but as far as healing goes, I have a number of medically diagnosed/treated ailments that have been resolved, including a spinal disk issue. So I will say YMMV. His personality certainly is "prickly."

Ultimately, nothing arises or ceases. Conventionally, things appear to be momentary. It is an application of the two truths.

Don't take second hand information, is what I would say.

Yes, I would agree with that, Cleansox. You are using the right expression. What I said is I don't see the Elixer development FF mentioned in the Buddhist schools I am familiar with. Of course, I am not familiar with every Buddhist school, and there are many, but I would be surprised. By all means, surprise me everyone! What I did not say was that there is no energy development. Yes, some Buddhists and and do work with energy but it is a means and not an end. The end, as set forth but the Buddha, is the end of suffering through the end of clinging. Buddhism without the Four Noble truths and the four dharma seals is not Buddhism, IMO. Nearly every Buddhist school claims that their tradition is secret, traces back to the Buddha, is the original/highest/best method, contains methods others don't know about, etc. Like with all conceptual expressions, it is a story. There are other stories as well, such as what we call modern Theravada was developed after contact with colonials in the 19th century. The story you have may be a useful story perhaps, but not to be taken too seriously in my mind. That goes for everything I have said as well. This is not true IMO. You are referring to the path of renunciation, which is one path, and it is not the same for everyone. I have known monks and nuns who have wandered without any home at all. But there are also paths of transformation and self-liberation. It is hard to draw a broad brush with Buddhism.

Nimitta is (in my experience) usually described as a preliminary to jhana, and may take different forms. It has not, in my experience, been described as a bright light of original mind, considered transformational, etc. I agree with you that Buddhist and Taoist cultivation methods are different, but you said they were "very similar." This has not been my experience, because your descriptions are not familiar. Accordingly, I was wondering about the bases for the statement. Perhaps you can elaborate at the similarities between the two methods? My basic point is that people may wish to consider adopting one path as their primary path, rather than trying to climb two mountains at once. Again, this is just my opinion. I do find Taoist methods to be helpful to Buddhist practice, though. Jhana is a big disputed topic. There is no consensus even among Theravadans, much less between Theravada and Mahayana, or Tantra, etc. The Suttas (reflecting the supposed spoken) words of the Buddha do not agree with the commentaries (such as the Visudhimagga). However, it is fairly clear that in many strains of Theravada teaching that as states of concentration, they are neither necessary nor sufficient for realization. I have heard one person who describes it as you do, but most teachers do not generally agree or teach it that way. In this regard, I can generally defer to Bhante Gunaratana: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrnguna.pdf

I'm not stating there was no cross-influence between Chan and Taoism, but I am unaware of anything in the Chan record indicating that anyone was cultivating the Elixer as described by FF. There are other descriptions that are quite similar, and would not surprise me if there was some overlap, but this does not appear to be the very specific method FF has laid out here:

I've not heard of anything like this description in any Buddhist or Shaiva Tantra instructions, written or oral. I imagine if I presented this to my Buddhist teachers, they would say I am reifying mind (or the nature of mind, depending). Most teachers are careful that any references to luminosity or light in the Buddhist teachings do not refer to anything like a physical light. There is dharma joke about a student in Berkeley who, after hearing the Dalai Lama's chauffer talk about the clear light of mind, went home to his altar and lit many candles. He sat down to meditate, closing his eyes. After a time, he noticed a bright light appearing even though his eyes were closed. Upon opening his eyes, he found his altar had caught fire. And as mentioned before, everything is ultimately empty from a Buddhist POV, so I'm not sure how one would pluck anything from it and compress it. I guess the question is: do they need to be similar? (highlights mine)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. What I wrote was pretty basic Madhyamaka stuff, which compiles the Prajnaparamita literature and serves as the overall basis for all four Tibetan schools, and as far as the Bhumis, per the Tibetan teachers I've had, they all refer to the realization of emptiness. I could pull various quotes from various sources, but that is off point here. I've not heard of any teachers proposing the "production fo the dharmakaya." Perhaps you can enlighten me in the Buddhist section.

I don't see how this would be possible. It seems to me that, especially based on Freeform's descriptions, that the methodologies are different to the point of incompatibility. This is not to say that one is right or one is wrong, but it does seem that they are going in different directions. From an Abhidharmic POV, anything that is cultivated, refined, or developed is dependently originated, and according to the words of the Buddha, bears the three marks of impermanence, not-self, and dissatisfaction. As it is dependently originated, it depends on causes and conditions, and it will eventually pass away. In addition, the aim of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering, not the creation of something. So it doesn't make sense that Buddhists would put in the intense time and effort to develop the Elixer, nor does it make sense that the Elixer would be unintentionally developed by the Buddhists. As FF says, the goal of alchemy is not ultimate truth. However, it is the goal of Mahayana Buddhist teaching, so there is again another difference. Finally, the descriptions FF provides about the essence of any such state would not fit in with Buddhism, as the essence of everything is emptiness. It would not be possible to condense emptiness, for example. So it seems to me that these are two very different paths, and at some point, one has to make a choice of method.

Then how would it have a light or substances that can be condensed?

Are you saying that, per the Taoist alchemical tradition, the primordial nature is material?

The crux of the matter. It is funny, because the more I practice, the more I realize the value of the preliminaries. In Tibetan Buddhism, there are the four contemplations that turn the mind toward the dharma. In Vedanta, a lot of time is spent analyzing the problem of happiness and discussing the qualifications (viveka, vairagya, etc.).

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. The problem with spiritual forums is that it is always easy to say "not it, not it" because nothing really captures it. There's always another side, like with the Zen poems. As always, there is a Zen story for this: Layman Pang was sitting in his thatched cottage one day when some one asked whether Zen was difficult or easy. "Difficult, difficult," he said; "like trying to scatter ten measures of sesame seed all over a tree." "Easy, easy," Mrs. Pang said; "like touching your feet to the ground when you get out of bed." "Neither difficult nor easy," their daughter, Ling Zhao said; "on the hundred grass tips, the Great Master's meaning."

In traditional Shaiva tantra, and in some schools of Buddhism, the most direct, simplest techniques are traditionally given first in the event that a person has high capacity (due to cultivation in prior lives). If it doesn't take, then one goes a bit less simple and more complicated until the methods match the person. That is to say, that the quickest method for some isn't necessarily the simplest or least complicated, depending on the person.

Interesting video of Michael James laying down Ramana Maharshi via Sri Sadhu Om., with both the path of inquiry and the path of surrender. I always was skeptical of some of the claim (i.e. the slept well), but the way Michael presents it here is great. There is also a transcript because the audio is poor, but I prefer to hear it orally. https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2020/05/self-investigation-as-way-to-love.html

In the Tibetan tradition, there are correlations drawn with the bardos of death and the states of sleep. The transition is roughly equivalent to the bardo of becoming. Because it is a bardo, things a bit more "open." Why not? Michael Pollan did a nice write up in "How to Change Your Mind." Sometimes I wonder if psychedelics hadn't been pushed too hard by the 1960's counterculture, leading to its subsequent banning, how different things might be now. With serious science going on, hopefully these things will be back in the mainstream. Sam Harris had a pretty good experience: https://samharris.org/podcasts/177-psychedelic-science/

Why sadly? Two hours a day for potentially life-changing effects doesn't seem that much. It also seems fairly in line with what most teachers recommend.