forestofclarity

A lot of people correlate self-enquiry with Ramana Maharshi, but truthfully self-enquiry had been around for centuries before him. For instance, Nisargadatta's teacher, Siddharameshwar Maharaj, took a different approach--- his "bird's eye" enquiry went through the various bodies or koshas--- which is one of many prakriyas available. Another which traced back to the Mandukya Upanishad uses the four states: waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and turiya. There is actually a whole body of techniques available.

A lot of teachers also say that it is not necessarily about one or the other, but that all can be useful.

I have a few thoughts. First, what detaches or immerses into the world? How does detachment/immersion work? Second, if the transcendent is separate from the world, it would be impossible to attain because there is no joining or point of contact between the two. Yet if the transcendent is no different from the world, what is the point in detaching at all?

Personally, I don't think that Kundalini is well-defined. I find definitions ranging from the ascent of a specific energy up the spine to connect with the crown to a wide range of mystical experiences. I think this is in part due to the high value placed on Kundalini awakening, such that people seek to interpret their own experiences as a sign of Kundalini awakening. I suppose my question for Hundun is: as this is an area you've devoted considerable time and energy into over the years, what do you see as the defining and commonly held characteristics of Kundalini awakening?

Oneironaut, I recently picked up this course at my local used book shop: Dream Yoga by Andrew Holecek It's pretty good so far, but I've only made it through Disk 2. He combined dream yoga with modern techniques, and he's been trained in both. He says in some ways, the Western techniques he learned are better than the Eastern ones. However, most Western lucid dreaming techniques are very similar. I have not seen much difference over the years. I have found them to be effective. A lot of Tibetan and Indian yoga based teachings are very cultural. In other words, they use symbols and images that are very charged in the culture of their origin, but may not have the same impact on people from other cultures, unless one has internalized the culture on an unconscious level. I would imagine that the same would go for Taoist techniques. So finding a Taoist technique may not help you unless you are already deeply steeped in Taoist teaching/practice.

I don't really see the difference between astral travel and lucid dreaming, although this may come from the fact that I've never successfully astrally traveled but I have had lucid dreams. However, the reports of others regarding astral travel match what I experience with dreams. I DO find that there is tremendous value in cultivating awareness in dreams. Not in order to fly around and indulge in fantasies, but because there is value in cultivating awareness in all states, and one's study of the dream/sleep state tends to loosen the attachments and sufferings in the waking state.

I've done some further study in Advaita and can say that Shankara did not, in fact, refute Buddhism. According to Michael Comans, by Shankara's time, Buddhism was pretty much on it's way out. Shankara was more determined to refute the Mimamsa school which was dominate in his day. So it makes sense that Shankara's view of Buddhism was partial and limited at best given the lack of available Buddhists to set forth their position. And that also explains why no Buddhists pointed out Shankara's shortcomings. Looking back to Gaudapada, it appears he had a lot in common with the Buddhists of his day, at least as their critiques apply to the world of things. And it also appears that Gaudapada agreed in large part with the Buddhists, although there are crucial disagreements. The Dayananda school describes Anvaya and Vyatireka like this: When this arises, that arises. When this does not arise, that does not arise. This sounds familiar to the Buddhists, and in fact this is one way the Buddha describes dependent origination in the Suttas. But where Buddhists use this to establish thoroughgoing interdependence, Advaitins use it to establish dependence on awareness. However, for the Advaitin, awareness illuminates objects, but is actually an object itself.

I think that is an error. I say this as someone who felt the same way, and who still does from time to time. We CANNOT see the end of the path. If we ALREADY knew the truth, then what use would there be for a path? And if we were so smart on our own, why haven't we found what we are looking for? Richard Rose once said that the truth is unknown, so you cannot look for it. The best you can do is back away from untruth. Just thinking about it: we cannot know the future. We can only try to simulate it. How? By using our past experiences. But isn't this crazy? If we are in search mode, it means that everything that has happened so far has failed to bring us fulfillment. Why then do we use these past failures to predict that things will be different in the future?

Why not try it and see where it goes?

I don't think it's a strange experience at all. I've had similar experiences, and others have too. My young son told me some time ago he was playing with his friends when suddenly he felt like he was watching a movie. He was still playing, but he was just watching it all happen. The mind takes many postures. What I have found most helpful for me is to see what is similar between postures, rather than try to cultivate a particular posture.

I haven't listened to all of these, but I'm working through Saddarshanam by Ramana Maharshi. Anyone interested in old school Advaita Vedanta might enjoy these. Saddarshanam is taught by Carol Whitfield, a disciple of Swami Dayananda. http://www.arshakulam.org/archives.html

It is not an underestimate, but an acknowledgement that the Christian relies heavily on faith and grace. Many schools of Buddhism rely on gaining knowledge, and this is based on specific practices. -- Cardinal Ratzinger, referring to St. Theresa (Interior Castle) --- Kallistos Ware, comparing The Jesus Prayer to Non-Christian Meditation

I have not come across any mind technologies in these religions that Buddhism has. For example, the development of concentration and mindfulness in an effort to understand direct experience. Christianity, especially, lacks any coherent technique. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the end of suffering, which comes from the cessation of clinging, which has nothing to do with the sun. The word nibbana meant to "cool", such as when you cooked something and you set it out to cool. So again, this analogy fails--- in fact, this is exactly the opposite of fire/sun. The term enlightenment is usually translated from "bodhi", which related to "buddhi" or the intellect -- the discriminating part of the mind. Again, nothing to do with the sun. I would further argue that the light referred to by many of these traditions is not the light of the sun, but the light of awareness. As for Taoism, it is as prone to persecution and religious fundamentalism as other religions (including Buddhism). How many Buddhist books and images were burned by Emperor Wuzong?

It is pretty classic in spiritual literature to compare the body to a kingdom, and the inner self to the ruler. Often, the cosmos, the government, and the individual are said to reflect one another. If the principles are universal, what is the difference between running the cosmos, the State, or the human being? http://www.goldenelixir.com/taoism/views_of_the_body.html

The further I get into this stuff, I find that simpler is often better. It took me quite a long time to appreciate Thich Nhat Hanh.

Nothing like a thought made solution to a thought made problem. Which is probably why I like Nagarjuna so much...

Parmenides and his student Zeno used this thinking to great effect. One cannot cross a room, Zeno would say, because you first have to cross 1/2 of it, then 1/2 of that, and so on, onto infinity. The point for me is that there is a difference between how we think about the world and how the world appears. Yet time and again, we often choose our thoughts about reality rather than reality itself.

The most helpful things I have come across are living a moral code and learning how to pay attention. These things will help no matter what comes next. However, many people who skip these steps seem to struggle a lot longer.

I think it is wise to avoid labels or identifying with this or that. Along those lines, consider that Daoism and Buddhism are both extremely diverse. There are many school and approaches within Daoism: religious, mystical, alchemical, etc. Some seek physical immortality, others seek to recover "original nature." You'll see more of the later among the Daoists that combine the three schools (Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism). From my own point of view, depending on where you live, it can be much harder to come into connection with a good Daoist teacher --- or to say, it's not in the cards for everyone.

I highly recommend it, on one condition: actually following the meditation instructions. I believe a lot of people go on retreats and spend the entire time thinking about other things. I typically try to go on a week long retreat once a year with that type of schedule (although it doesn't always work out). I have found it to be very helpful.

From Breath of Love by Bhante Vimalaramsi :

Richard Shankman did a study of this some time ago in his Experience of Samadhi. Bhante Gunaratana (Mindfulness in Plain English) said point blank that sutta jhanas and visuddhimagga jhanas are not the same. Bhante Vimalaramsi actually tossed his practice (Mahasi noting) and went back to the suttas to see what they said. His exposition is much different --- unifying concentration as opposed to concentration on a single point.

I personally believe that any spiritual system, if earnestly practiced, will reveal its truth. However, these systems are by their nature subtle and difficult to get. Even the founders acknowledge that. The founding myth of Buddhism tells us the Buddha didn't want to teach because he didn't think anyone would get it. Should it be any surprise then that most people simply don't get it? Or if you look at the traditional criteria for Advaita Vedanta, you already needed to have the ability to restrain the mind and be fed up with the world. Just qualifying would make you a pretty advanced yogi. In my mind, there is a big difference between saying the system doesn't work for me and the system doesn't work. Of course we all think our way, our opinion, our view is the best. That is exactly the core issue these systems are designed to deal with.

Thanks. I will give it a shot.

My definition is well written, entertaining, and with something to say beyond plot points. Here's a few fiction books I liked: Catch-22 by Joseph Heller The Razor's Edge by Somerset Maugham The Name of the Rose by Umberto Echo The Yiddish Policeman's Union by Michael Chabon