forestofclarity

A good bridge might be Sufi teachings, as you already have a good grounding in Islam. Lex Hixon was, like you, an American, a Muslim, and a mystic.

Alan Watts draws an interesting distinction between myth and falsity. According to him, myth isn't untrue, rather it is a story that captures a truth that transcends any particular form. That is why, in my opinion, it is said that the dharma gates are endless. If Buddhism wasn't mythical, it would be limited in time, place, and expression.

Believing I am separate from the world. Believing that the material world will bring happiness. The habit of ignoring inner awareness. The habit of trying to improve, or escape, the moment at hand. The outer life depends on the inner life, and the inner life depends on these core habits. Personally, I don't think it's enough to just address the inner habits, but I think we also need to go to the root or core delusions.

Cosmos.

Let me ask this: if outside of consciousness, there was either a Big Divine Mind, a material universe, or absolutely nothing, would it make a difference to what happens within consciousness?

There's an old story about a rich father who's house was on fire. His children were so caught up in their games that they didn't notice and wouldn't leave the house. So the father told them there were amazing carriages outside: to one, he said it was a goat drawn carriage, to another, a deer drawn carriage, and to the third, a horse drawn carriage. The children became so excited they ran outside to see the carriages. So who's lie is the best? The one that gets you out of the burning house.

Just thinking out loud. Looking at this again, I note that the word used by Ramana Maharshi is "aham vritti." Vivekananda described the mind like a lake. Within the waters (chitta) there are ripples or waves (vrittis) that obscure the bottom (atman). Ramana Maharshi says the aham vritti is the vritti that underlies all other vrittis. Now in the modern West, we tend to assume (incorrectly) that when we see a table, we are really seeing the table. But that is not really what we're seeing--- what we're seeing is not the table, but the mind in the shape of the table, i.e. a vritti. The same holds true for all forms--- our body, thoughts, emotions, etc. This isn't some philosophical thought, but you can actually see the mind forming and unforming the world when you drift off to sleep or wake up. So the first mistake is taking any of the vrittis to the be the Self, or in thinking any of the vrittis can capture the Self. The second mistake would be to take the mind (chitta) to be the Self.

One of my early teachers said there is a place for spiritual teachings and a place for ordinary psychological-medical teachings. Typically, many people need both. I think the other posters have given good advice. Having said that, nothing lasts forever. Remember, you are okay. Your mind is telling you nonsense. You are alive and breathing. All your problems are temporary. The more you hold onto them, the longer they will last. A few suggestions, to take or leave: 1. Go to sleep earlier and get at least a full night's rest. 2. Exercise and eat well. Drink water. Stay away from drugs and alcohol. Lying in bed will lead to stagnant energy and make you feel tired. 3. I have found that warm feelings come from connection, typically with others. When people are too hard, try animals. Volunteer at an animal shelter. Think about how you can help others. 4. Find a practice group/sangha. 5. Have some sort of life plan. Working is a great spiritual practice. Set some goals, and stick to a timeline.

Of course, by making the mistake I did, I also learned a very important lesson.

The feeling "I AM" is a feeling. It has a specific form and it lasts for a specific duration. It is a vritti. If you try to cling to it, or hold on to it, you are essentially trying to make it into something that it isn't. But I don't think that's the point of the exercise. The point, in my mind, is to investigate the sense of I AM, not to sustain it. From Maurice Frydman, the editor of I Am That:

I think I AM THAT Is deceptive. Some of us reading it walked away thinking that the point was to sustain a feeling of I AM. Big mistake.

In my experience, thoughts come in three basic flavors: inner visuals, inner sounds, and inner feelings. You don't necessarily "see" all of your inner thoughts. Listening to your inner jukebox IS observing your thoughts, in that case, sound. Personally, many of my inner thoughts are visual. For my others, there may be a lot of sound, or feeling. It sounds like you're doing it right. I wouldn't worry about what you've been told should happen, it is more looking to see what is happening.

Not getting much juice in the main forum, so I thought I'd try it here. I came across the 100 Character Stele the other day, which I found quite interesting. Instead of visualizations, chakra spinnings, tai chi, qi gong, and the rest, it seems to provide a rather simple formula to attain heaven's ladder. My questions have to do with the Chinese. For one, could the experts please tell me which characters are being used in the translated version, versus the reproduced stele at the bottom? And for translating "forget speech keeping," some translators interpret this to mean discursive thought, which sounds reasonable. I was wondering about other interpretations. http://gator.dt.uh.edu/~chong/CPoetry/luyan1.htm

I have seen people with the "killer instinct" as adults. When they look at people, they might as well be looking at furniture. In order to have the "killer instinct", you have to dehumanize others, and in dehumanizing others, you dehumanize yourself. What we should want is our children to be strong, and strength doesn't come by being able to physically stand up to someone else. Strength comes from inner power, and inner power can be developed. It is developed by giving kids our time and attention, giving them positive encouragement, and telling them they are wonderful. What I've seen happen over time is that this positivity helps them develop the strength and confidence they need to face the world on their own. And when they are strong and confident, they are pushed around less. When they see injustice, they will naturally stand up for themselves and others.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is an excellent koan that led the famous Soto Zen master Dogen to enlightenment.

One could take a Buddhist view, and say there is no right answer, no fixed standard by which to measure which path is right or which is wrong. Or one could take a more Taoist view, and say there is no wrong answer, that whatever you choose is the right way for you, even if it turns to look like an error.

Another way to look at empty mind is not that empty means "nothing" in the Western sense, but that empty means "not fixed." In this line of thought, all minds are empty because they are not fixed. Consider this from Takuan Soho:

Some say the same thing about God.

Silence is only one half of the equation. The nature of the God/Tao is ultimately creative. That means the formless is constantly taking form, and form is constantly returning to formlessness. Without activity, there is no flow, no life. A tree cannot exist solely as a tangle of roots--- it needs the outward and upward expansion of its trunk, branches, and leaves.

But doesn't this: Also apply to this?

Actually, I think this is a bit reductionist. There is no monolithic Christianity just as there is monolithic Buddhism. Mystical Judeo-Christian teachings tend to present human beings as a mix of higher and lower natures. The animalistic nature tends to pull one down, while the spiritual nature leads one higher. Human beings are, after all, made in the image of God, so to say that the essence of a human being is sin is a bit simplistic. Humans stand between heaven and earth and can perform as a channel so that divine energy can manifest on earth. Actually, taking a closer look at this, the ancient Jews taught that the blood contained the animal soul, or nefesh. So a blood sacrifice can be seen in some ways to be a sacrifice of the lower or animal nature. It is this lower of animal nature that tends to pull people down. One difference that I see is that Christian mysticism is completely dependent on grace. There is something of a lack of historical methods because one cannot manipulate God, so to speak. Rather, many of the mystics speak of clearing away the old self, or kenosis (which actually reminds me a lot of Soto Zen). Once self-emptying is accomplished, the divine presence may manifest (i.e. theosis). So a Christian mystic doesn't practice in order to achieve anything. Rather, a Christian mystic practices in order to get rid of the obstacles between oneself and God. And once these obstacles are removed, it is only natural for God to manifest. As far as comparisons to Buddhism, I would take a look at Pureland teachings which are also other-power oriented.

Thinking back, I found that they were very similar. In fact, I personally believe that an aversion to self-consciousness is one of the things that keeps people asleep to themselves. Self consciousness, as noted, is often something bad. There are often reported studies that tell us people are more afraid of public speaking than death (public speaking can be an excellent practice). One difference is that self-awareness does not judge. For me, there is judgment or a fear of judgment in self-consciousness that is absent in self-awareness. When one is self-conscious, there is typically an imaginary standard that you measuring yourself by. "Am I doing this right? Do I sound foolish? There is no way I can do this!" However, with self-awareness, one is aware without judging, or at least not becoming involved in judging. This doesn't happen overnight, but if we practice sincerely it develops over time.

I had an acting teacher once give us a lesson on communication. He asked: "Who here is a liberal?" Some hands went up. "Who's a conservative?" Some other hands went up. "Who is a Christian?" Some hands went up. "Who is an atheist?" Some other hands went up. Then he said, "Who here has been in love?" Every hand went up. "Who has ever suffered pain?" Every hand went up. He said that we can talk along our differences, or we can talk along our similarities.