forestofclarity

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.

From the Sutra of Hui Neng, trans. Red Pine: What do we mean by a form that is ‘no form’? To be free of form in the presence of forms. And ‘no thought’? Not to think about thoughts. And ‘no attachment,’ which is everyone’s basic nature? Thought after thought, not to become attached. Whether it’s a past thought, a present thought, or a future thought, let one thought follow another without interruption. Once a thought is interrupted, the dharma body becomes separated from the material body. When you go from one thought to another, don’t become attached to any dharma. Once one thought becomes attached, every thought becomes attached, which is what we call ‘bondage.’ But when you go from one thought to another without becoming attached to any dharma, there’s no bondage. This is why ‘no attachment’ is our foundation. Good friends, ‘no form’ means externally

I've practiced Buddhism in a number of traditions, and never once was taught to try consolidating and empty mind or singing the name of the Buddha. Many forms of Buddhism are based on insight, and sometimes this insight is joined with shamatha or tranquility (not necessarily stillness). Tranquility actually comes according to many Buddhists from relaxing fixation, not forcibly stilling the mind. If the mind stills naturally, it still naturally, but this is not necessarily an aim or a requirement. As Hui Neng said: Chanting the name of the Buddha has a bit more to it then sitting around singing all day as well.

I forgot to mention this was a self-portrait.

I took a photo to accompany the video:

I don't think it is alien, I think it was lost. Pierre Hadot and Peter Kingsley have excavated evidence of ancient Greek practices. I read one of Plato's writings that specifically referenced oral teachings with exercises. If I were to speculate, I would think the practices were once there but have been lost.

I think Stoicism from a Buddhist POV would work with the sila (morality) aspect, but it ultimately lacks the liberating samadhi and prajna. I think Stoicism can be useful in adapting Buddhist types ideas into Western language. I think Pyrrhonism would be more on point given its overlap with Madhyamaka. As for Taoists, there is nothing in Stoicism comparable to aligning one's channels and working with the body-mind on a deep level. There is no qigong, neigong, or neidan in Stoicism. Unfortunately, the only remnants of Stoicism are written directions. We do not have any oral instructions or access to the exercises they used. Nor do we have living teachers of the tradition that can pass it along. Accordingly, I imagine one would largely be working with the shallower aspects of the mind. But it would be better than practicing nothing.

To nitpick a little, fully realized Buddhahood would be samyaksambodhi, whereas what (I've been taught anyway) is that the beginning stages of enlightenment start with breaking the first three fetters (out of 10) in Theravada or having a stable realization of emptiness which is the first Bhumi (our of 10) in Mahayana.

I wouldn't say any post is necessarily offensive, but some are more likely to produce offense or negative feelings in others. Personally, I think confrontation, as a spiritual tactic, works with people who know each other and have some trust established. Online, I see it just produces arguments, bad feelings, etc. Which is not to say that I'm somehow above it all by any means. Sometimes when people say outlandish things, they want attention, praise, honor, etc. I don't think that is the case here. I think there is a likelihood that he is suffering from a physiologically based mental illness. It is not uncommon in real life spiritual circles, and I imagine is even more prevalent online. And of course, spiritual practice itself can be quite destabilizing. People can approach it differently--- some will agree potentially reinforcing the delusions. Others may be polite, pretending what is being said doesn't sound like mental illness. Others may deride, which may not be the best strategy in such cases. No solutions here, just a different view.

Have you considered whether the person you are taking as your spiritual teacher (in whatever form) may have some issues of his own, possibly including some mental illness? I'm not saying that he is or isn't---- I don't know him and I am not a doctor. But having spent a lot of time around mentally ill people, his posts parallel the thinking that I've heard from mentally ill people (a generalized lack of stability, a tendency to meander, making wild connections). I think you made some great points, but I have found that people tend to enjoy sarcasm and cutting wit less upon hearing it than they do upon saying it.

As a parent, you can use it to your advantage. Some years ago, when my son was 5-6, the song Pumped Up Kicks got a lot of airplay. It is essentially about a school shooting. With some power of suggestion, this is what my son heard (and still hears to this day). All the other kids with the pumped up kicksYou'd better run, better run, out run my gun momAll the other kids with the pumped up kicksYou'd better run, better run, faster than my bullet brother You know, just a song about racing your family members.

Totally agree. I had a very powerful mystical experience in the Christian tradition many years ago. I was unable to deepen or sustain it, and eventually it faded. Some years later, during Buddhist retreats, the same experiences manifested. I was very surprised. However, the names applied were different, and many of them did not have specific names. Now, as I delve in Taoism, I see explanations of various experiences that fit what I initially experienced perfectly, except they have different names and explanations. Same experience, different names and explanations. I think this is how traditions are. They begin with the experiential realization, but one cannot pass that. Rather, what one can pass are the names and explanations. Then we get attached to the names and explanations, completely forgetting the experience. Over time, the names and explanations may become very rigid, much like concepts and mental habits become rigid. Sounds a lot like the whole original mind (yuan shen), acquired mind (shi shen) in Taoism. There are certainly points of contact between mystics of all traditions.

When the proverbial S started to hit the proverbial F, I made two purchases I do not regret when the gyms closed: a Weider weight bench (i.e. Total Gym rip off) and a stationary bicycle. A modest investment ($200ish) with great returns. Also, I have found that riding a bicycle is great. I'm in Colorado, so I can ride on a trail for quite a ways. Sometimes it is good with an audiobook, a youtube video (listen only) or podcast. Sometimes it is good just to meditate in motion.

Oh the Bardos. I've been getting a lot of Bardo teachings over the past year, before COVID. It is funny because initially they seem like a death teaching, but the bardo experience is everywhere. One of my favorite practices these days is yogic napping, sometimes in the West called liminal dreaming. You lay down to take a nap, and let your mind drift in and out of the hypnogogia. You can literally watch the body dissolve and reform, and the waking and non-waking states arise and pass. It is how I like to do bardo prayers. With a little experience in liminal and regular dream yoga, it is amazing how the bardo teachings really come to life. Yes, I agree. Sometimes these posts just spill out in contact with, and not necessarily in response to, other's posts.

Emptiness, not nothingness. Nothingness would be nihilism. What appears is expressions of the dharmakaya (however you define it). However, lacking any unitary, independent, permanent substance to them, they are empty. Last night, I dreamed I was in a house. It was very detailed, ornate, elaborate. There were these old lamps that didn't work well. They would sputter before coming on. The house had old wall paper, and many rooms with moody yellow lighting. It was an old house, probably from the early 20th century. Something entered into the house, very loudly and aggressively, coming for me. I forgot I was dreaming (connate ignorance). I took the expressions of my mind (the house, the lamps, my dream body, the monster) as real (co-emergent ignorance). Because of this, I had fear arise (emotional obscuration). What if instead, I recognized that I was dreaming and relaxed? Even though there was nothing to grasp or let go of? Well, then I would have been able to walk through walls. But there are degrees of lucidity in a dream. From a little lucid, to completely awake. Even when completely awake in the dream, the dream rules still apply. It takes some time to undo the mental habit that prevents you from walking through a wall. Last night, I didn't. I woke myself up. In so doing, the dream world dissolved, and the waking world emerged much the same way, with the same level of detail.

What do you mean when you say "isn't actually there?"

Buddhism is very befuddling to the intellect. That is why Nagarjuna spent so much time dismantling the intellect and showing its limitations (although not negating it completely). Consider emptiness. Things are empty, yet they appear. That doesn't make any sense. But why does it have to make sense? The universe feels no need to fit itself into our human made concepts. We should adjust to what happens rather than expecting what happens to adjust to us. When that doesn't work, I see it as a process of removal. Buddha nature is inherent, like gold crusted in rock, or a white cloth dyed blue, or [insert preferred example]. The gold may be in that rock, but until you clean it, polish it, and recognize its value, it might as well be a rock. Those positive acts don't change the nature of the gold, but without them the gold won't come through.

In an empty, interdependent universe, definitions are slippery things. Here, I'm like "do you mean a complete idiot like Jigme Lingpa, or a complete idiot like certain unnamed political figures?" It reminds me of an old joke: one time, there was a hunting camp in a place where brigands and outlaws dwelled. On of the hunters was coming back from an evening hunt. He had a little knowledge of spirituality. When the camp guard heard the approach, the guard yelled: "Who goes there?" And the hunter, being clever said, "No one!" The guard, being a little more knowledgeable, yelled back "Not yet you're not!" Better to leave the pot on the stove, lest one gets burned.