forestofclarity

Just to add another conceptual stick on the log--- some teachers offer the formless view first. A sort of reverse Lam Rim. They offer the formless teachings first, and go down progressively so each student can meet the teaching according to their own capabilities. I used to have fierce opinions on this, but holding to thoughts a little more loosely, it seems to me that any approach is going to depend on each student. For some, the quick path is not quick at all, and they will muddle around conceptually when they could have been cultivating meritorious conduct. Others may not have the capacity for more formalized Tibetan practices, and some teachers may require decades of preliminary training before they even think about anything else. Mahamudra was (per Prof Reggie Ray) initially a householders path, and even Gampopa taught it apart from Tantra IIRC. I agree with @steve that there are cultural differences. Ngondro to a teenage Tibetan raised in a monastery may be a different experience that Ngondro to a 35 year Western householder who may have raised a family, progressed through formal education, and/or started a business. I am told there are often key psychological differences between the two cultures. Personally, I needed to spend some time drinking, smoking, and chasing samsara before I was fit for any dharma. And having one's life falling apart can be a good reminder of impermanence and the defects of samsara. I guess it depends on how broadly one wishes to use the words "preliminary" and "path." It seems to me that when you're on the path, there is a "higher power" that sort of directs you where you need to go if you are listening (and that can be a big if).

Why do you say that? And we're talking arhats here, not mere stream enterers or once returners.

I really don't think any Buddhist path is dual. Mahayana especially, with its focus on emptiness--- by definition, in an empty universe, there is no basis upon which to erect any dualities. Some folks think that Shravaka is dual, because they discover the emptiness of self but not phenomenon, but I tend to agree with Ju Mipham Rinpoche that this is a bunch of pish-posh--- how could you discover the emptiness of self without also discovering the emptiness of phenomenon?

This is funny because I had a different experience. One of my catechism teachers (also in a small Midwestern town) told us that at a certain age, we should listen for the small voice. She was very precise about it, stating that often one would hear a ringing in the ears before. Others in the class had a similar experience. I never experienced any such thing. It would have been interesting if she had been your teacher. I cannot say whether the priests would have been on board or not. What I didn't learn until much later is that although externally I am very visual and thought oriented, internally I am very somatic. If she had told me to feel for a higher presence, things may have turned out differently. Other people are more visual--- they get images, etc. in their minds.

You're talking folk Christianity here. Like folk Buddhism, where people pray to Buddhas for money. A more cogent view, in my opinion, is found in the philosophy of David Bentley Hart. You will find a much larger God there than you would normally find in your neighborhood church. Perhaps a God too large for any one religion.

1. Be careful. The habit of meditation you install now can persist for quite a period of time. Treat meditation with a healthy respect. You are, in mind, doing brain surgery on yourself. I would be careful about narrowing, too much focusing, fixating, etc. This stuff can cause knots and blocks that can be hard to remove later. I would urge a soft focus over a strong focus. 2. Read up on it. Find what styles you are interested in, and what you will actually do. Try to get a sense of what traditions and traditional teachers say. This is important for the next step. Once you find what you are interested in, then: 3. Find a teacher you trust and who's instructions you will follow. You may have to try out a number of teachers. In this day and age, many teachers are available online and/or have online programs to follow. Take advantage of this. Meditation is best learned from a person. If you can't or won't, then at least follow a program. 4. Relax! It is better to take your time and learn the basics now then have to go back and redo it later. Also, there is no hurry. It takes time to grow flowers and develop your mind.

I think we generally start off with some sort of provisional faith, but over time, that provisional faith is replaced by direct experience. Once you have the experience, you no longer need the provisional faith. In ancient India, it was said there were three things that pointed to truth, and you need all three: the scriptures, the teachings of your teacher, and your own personal experience. Having one or two but not all three is not enough. When you have all three, even a glimpse, then the teachings spring into your mind stream and come alive. It is like learning to find dragons. At first, you read about dragons, maybe buy some paintings and so on. Maybe you even look around and see some dragon tracks and old scales. One day, you find some one to teach you. They show you how to track dragons, where to look for dragons, and what signs to look for when you've seen one. Perhaps you see a dragon's tail. For some people, they will say this isn't a dragon, it is a snake. But it isn't, it is the dragon. Over time, you begin to see more and more of the dragon. Some people, who are really dedicated, may even be able to tame and train the dragon. Some might even fly. People stop at various points: some with books, some with the tail, some before they can fly. Some people say if you can't fly, you don't really have a dragon. Many points of view. It may be the case that Bodri/Nan didn't resonate, because at the time I had very little experience. I went looking through his website looking for this quote for you, and I can see much of what I missed. Here is the quote for the way beyond cause and effect:

For me, prajna doesn't necessarily mean to he same thing in different traditions, or even the same thing in the same tradition. And of course, we students understand everything a little bit differently. In Theravada in my experience, prajna referred to insight that arose from properly applying sila and samadhi. Specifically, it related to insight into no self, impermanence, and the unsatisfactory nature of phenomenon. In some Mahayana contexts, it may refer to insight into emptiness. In Zen contexts, prajna may refer to spontaneous actions that arise when the acquired mind is set aside. Master Nan offers another definition. In some Dzogchen teachings, it may mean different things in Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen contexts. Who is right? By what standard is right established? Is it a strong feeling? How strong? In my mind, all conceptual views are partial. How can it be otherwise in a complex, interconnected, non-separate, ever changing universe? A word or a concept is necessarily partial and limited, an attempt to isolate what cannot be isolated and fix what cannot be fixed. And what is a word or concept anyway? How do we know Master Nan isn't lying to us, or giving a provisional teaching, or was mistranslated? And of course, if prajna is acquired, if it has causes and conditions, then the dissolution of the causes and conditions (which is inevitable in a constantly changing universe) will lead to the dissolution of prajna. Similarly, it is said that when merit is exhausted, even the gods die. What good is a million eons of pleasure once it vanishes without a trace? PS: Back in 2005-2006, Nan and Bodri were the talk of the Taobums. I played a night of poker and did something I never had before: I played sober. I cleaned up and won well over $100. I used it to buy How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization. Good times.

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.