forestofclarity

Is ZZ all you're doing? I've usually seen it taught as part of a bigger package.

Practicing with Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche I went to see Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche this weekend. This isn't something I would typically do. When I heard he was coming to my state, I thought "Oh well." When I heard he was coming within a few minutes of me, and giving a retreat by donation, I took notice and decided to surrender. I had attended a transmission from him before, but I didn't think it was for me. The first day, I thought there's so many practices, there's no way I will even be able to do one. Why am I even here? Then he said, while looking at me (or at least in my general direction), "The only practice you really need to do is Ati Guru yoga." Even though I had the transmission for this, but I didn't really know how to do it. The instructions I had gotten were so complex and hard to follow. At the retreat, they happened to have the Guru Yoga books which explained it quite well. It turns out it was far simpler than I anticipated. Not only that, but doing the practice with the teacher was amazing. Guess what the key ingredient is? That's right. Surrender. The last day, I got in the long line to have a few moments with ChNN himself. While in line, I noticed that some people had these white scarves that ChNN was putting around their neck and giving a blessing. "Wouldn't it be nice to have one of those?" I thought. I looked around, but you had to BYOS--- bring your own scarf. Not a minute went by when someone standing ahead of me pulled a white scarf out of her bag and said, "Would you like one of these? I brought extras." Of course, of course.

Once we start to divide the world up into us vs them, normals vs monsters, good vs evil, and so on, there is no end to conflict.

The first thing I would do is cut the defense budget and feed the world. In 2008, evidently that would only be about 30 billion. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html I would come down hard on fossil fuels. We would decentralize from cities to local communities. I would institute a mid-day siesta. I would require mandatory body - awareness training to children in school.

Hmm, that's an interesting viewpoint. Do you reject centering on the LDT? This is the one universal method I have been taught across traditions. I find that centering helps me remain grounded and present. In my mind, our qi starts out fairly disturbed and scattered. Most people are so distracted that they seem unaware that they even have bodies unless they're sick. Concentration practices or qigong with forms is a way to re-introduce the energy body to a more spontaneous state. In the TTC Chapter 38, Laozi describes the degeneration of the Tao to virtue to kindness to justice to ritual. One might think that this also presents a ladder to return to the Tao: ritual, to justice, to kindness, to virtue, to Tao. Someone at the low end of the ladder might even reject ritual, and claim they are already spontaneous. Spontaneous methods appear to me to be about learning to flow. But without first being collected, what is there to flow? What do you think?

The Two Parts of Surrender As a Buddhist, I learned a lot about the first part of surrender. The first part is letting go. When something arises, it will also pass. I've found that it will often pass more quickly if you let it go. This is often a part of the methods of monks and those who renounce the world. Form is emptiness. But I've also come to realize the second part of surrender. The second part is allowing things to come. Once we let go, it is easier for other things to manifest. One of the issues with clinging is that it kills. When we hold one to one thing, something else cannot arise. But by letting go, things end. Yet in the ending, there is arising. I've seen this a part of the methods of householders and those who live in the world. Emptiness is form.

I haven't read Chia in years, but I can say that I doubt he means a strong, tense concentration. I remember a lot of focus on relaxing. There is an old Taoist story about the farmer who planted seeds, and impatient with his progress, tried to help them grow by pulling on them. Of course, it didn't work, and he ruined his harvest. I've been meditating a very long time and have to learn the hard way that strong, tense concentration isn't healthy. If you bring that type of tension to the LDT, I think you're going to have a lot of problems. I see my energy body like a flower. You can't make flowers bloom. But with water and sunshine, they will bloom naturally. Rather, what I've seen most effective in my own practice is light concentration. Attention in some ways is itself like a light. You don't need to do anything to it intensity wise. You just need to pick where it goes. For example, think of a cat. You can do it instantly, without effort. The same goes with concentration. When the attention wanders off, just bring it back. It will wander off quite a bit, but over time it will wander less.

I don't think I did. In fact, I was careful not to. Mixing up ontology with epistemology happens when people say "we cannot know what is outside of consciousness, therefore nothing exists apart from consciousness." My point here is that there may be unknowns outside of consciousness. But the body, as we perceive it, does not generate consciousness. It is a perception OF consciousness. Naive realists believe the world exists as we see it, forgetting that how the world appears depends on the one looking at it. Indeed, what is perceived by the body is only a small sliver of a greater whole. For example, looking at the body, we see a limited range of light. The perception of the body changes with conditions, such as whether it is day or night, whether it is seen by someone with color blindness, whether the seer is sick and so on. In addition, even pointing to a body separates it from its context: time, space, the earth, the universe, etc. You can remove the perception of your body --- sight, sounds, touch etc. But consciousness remains. However, if you remove consciousness, there is no perception of the body. Accordingly, the perception of the body depends on consciousness. A lot of people mistake this point for idealism, but it isn't--- in fact, this is how many people categorize Yogacara. The position is that everything we see is consciousness, so saying that what we see creates, generates, or is necessary for consciousness is an error.

I've noticed I've often had a caveat on surrender. I'm often willing to surrender some, but not all. A good example is when I took the Buddhist precepts. I would take the precepts, BUT. I had to take them from a monk. That I respected. In a formal ceremony. I set conditions. In that case, even when the conditions were fulfilled in a spectacular fashion, I had resistance. Why do I need to take precepts? Why do I need to commit formally? In more recent times, it has been: what about kids? What about family? What about a comfortable life style? Heck, what about warm showers? So here's where the resistance sets in. The mind has a million reasons to NOT do something.

The two most described methods I've come across are spontaneous qigong and standing practice.

I would argue it is the other way around. In consciousness studies, there is the "methodological problem." The methodological problem is that the study of consciousness is done in the light of consciousness. There is no way to study consciousness apart from consciousness. The body, as we perceive it, is an object of consciousness. There may be an unknown outside of consciousness that generates the perception of the body and also consciousness, but it is unknown. Because the body is an object of consciousness, saying that it generates consciousness is like seeing a projector in a movie and saying that the projector creates the movie. Of course it doesn't. Now there may be a projector outside of the movie creating the movie and the projector, but at this point, I don't think that's verifiable.

1. What is your definition of nibbana? Is it a state of eternal non-consciousness? If so, what's the point? 2. If there is a gap in consciousness and it is discontinuous, what notices the gap? 3. Is there rebirth after death? If not, then what's the point of practice? 4. What is your position on pure awareness in the Advaitic sense? 5. Have you had a brain scan or EEG done? If not, why not? If so, how does your brain compare with other, normal brains? If not, why not? 6. What is your thought on non-duality? 7. Many people accuse you of teaching the extreme of nihilism. Are you aware of these criticisms, and if so, how do you response? 8. Have you corresponded with mainstream Theravada teachers? If so, what do they think of your teachings? How do you respond to their criticisms? 9. How does one tell the difference between an arhat and someone who simply claims to be an arhat?

There's more to non-duality that Shankara. For instance, there is Shavism, Tantra, and Buddhism. There are strong historical roots of lay meditators in these traditions, who were neither Brahmins nor monks.

I don't think it's the type of qigong, so much as what we bring to qigong. For many years, I tried to make things happen in qigong and meditation. It took me a long time just sitting to realize that it is often the doing that gets in the way. So the question from my point of view isn't how do I develop qigong, but how do I get out of the way so that qigong can manifest.

Belly breathing.

It sort of reminds me of circle breathing in qigong empowerment. However, that goes from huiyin, to mingmen, to guanyuan.

I think there is a lot of confusion these days between acting naturally and acting according to one's personal desires. Looking at the Tao Te Ching, Laozi tells us that ethics arise when the natural way is lost. In a sense, one can see that following the ethical principles laid down by the sages as a way to recover what we've lost. One the natural state is recovered, ethics are not necessary. But only once the natural state is recovered. If one has trained in awareness, then one knows that our actions impact not only others, but ourselves. And not just in a vague way. There are specific physical and mental changes that occur when one acts ethically. Other physical and mental change occur when one does not act ethically. Typically what I've seen is that ethical behavior opens one up to the world and positive energies. It leads to increased relaxation, physical well being, knowledge, and connection. Unethical behavior tends to foster ignorance, tightening, closing off, numbing.

I think the point of ethics is to free us from the tyranny of the desires of the small self. The small self will always find a million reasons why ethics don't apply when it they are inconvenient. While it may seem binding to follow ethics, I find the ethical path is in fact far less binding than the path of subjugation to dictates of the small self.

There is a long and complex history between Taoism and Zen. There are many stories about Zen master seeking out Taoists (Hakuin for example) and other stories about Taoists seeking out Buddhists (Lu Dongbin). Then there are schools that combine them, as you can see in the Secret of the Golden Flower. One thing is to understand that insight leads to physical and energetic changes, and physical and energetic changes lead to insight. There are several Buddhist teachers out there who actively teach some form of neidan (or qigong, depending on how you define it). On the other hand, some Taoists teachers say that you should keep the two apart. I think it is a matter of attitude. Some forms are compatible, and some are not.

A lot of qigong books talk about doing qigong with trees. I'm something of a skeptic with a lot this stuff, but plant gong is something I often play with because it generates fairly powerful feelings. My procedure (similar to the experiment below): 1. Feel the body. This tunes me in at a somatic-feeling level. 2. Relax 3. Feel into the plant. Sometimes I put my hand on the plant, or hover my palms around it. 4. Open up and allow it to come.

Non-duality in some forms of Buddhism means "free from extremes." In Advaita it tends to mean not different from Brahman. These are two very different definitions. Although, given this definition of non-duality, where is it that the "you" ends? Where is the line between "you" and "not you"?

I would question first what is meant by a non-dual state. The distinction between nirvikalpa and savikalpa samadhi is a good one because different traditions place one over the other. But even then, what are we really talking about? The non-duality of self and other? Subject and object? Emptiness and appearance? A merging of inner space and outer space? An arising of unifying bliss? A feeling? A state of neither knowing nor not-knowing? I have a feeling that a non-dual state for modern neo-Advaitins is really no different from a regular state, only with the added realization that there is nothing to do. I would also call attention to the use of the concept "state", as in we're either in a non-dual state or not. I think it is more of a matter of degree, and that the non-dual view sort of merges with all other states and changes them very subtly.

Spiritual practice is practice, training rather than perfection. Part of the process is failing and learning from failure. This, however, I recognize well--- this is the part of your body that is in love with chemicals. It will always come up with elaborate lies. Even from a physical view, long term use of chemicals sets up a network of craving in the brain. When you stop, the network goes dormant. But even one use will light it up "like a Christmas tree."

Actually, it does. I would advise taking a look at research in neuroplasticity. Rick Hanson, for example, has proven that one can modify the brain's inherent negativity bias through applying a set of simple principles. The idea that the brain is somehow fixed or unchangeable after a certain point is a discredited view developed in the early twentieth century before scientists had access to brain imaging tools. There are many, many others other than Ramana and Nisargadatta who can testify to the efficacy of the methods that have been developed over thousands of years. The problem with "thinking for oneself" is that we often come up with faulty conclusions based on bad reasons. If you want to see this in action, look at some of Plato's dialogues. You will see many common sense assumptions shown to be faulty under the analysis of logic and reason. Vivekananda once compared the mind to a monkey, who's nature of excitable, who is also drunk, stung by a scorpion, and possessed by a ghost. The mind is unstable to begin with, filled with desire and jealousy, and centered on pride. It needs help.

I don't know if I would say these are basic truths about your identity, perhaps more like temporary truths. If you lost your hands, your citizenship, or had a different gender, would you no longer be you?