forestofclarity

This is the most Daobums things I've come across in a while: experiential, "hacking," applicable to multiple forms of meditation, seems effective. From Forrest Knutson, a kriyaban.

When I first started spiritual practice, it was suggested that I study fraud, tricks, and magic to learn how people are deceived. For example, people like to pass leverage and body mechanics off as special powers of some sort. I also like to study cults from time to time. In that spirit, from some recent resources: Ge Guolong, Taoist Inner Alchemy, trans. Mattias Daly I would say these groups are more "cultish" than cults, more of a cult of personality than a Jim Jones commune. But the basic principles seem to be the same. It should not be missed that many groups use byzantine metaphysics, endless explanations, and or various types of conspiracies to draw people in, creating "us" v. "them" mentalities and shaping one's perceptions. Some of this comes from limiting sources of information to a single authoritative source (which is one reason we have records from past masters):

I heard Swartz on a podcast (BATGAP?) talking that, because he was enlightened, he just sat around all day watching TV and there was really no point in doing anything else. I sort of lost interest after that. Having said that, it does appear to me that there is a non-omnipresent bliss (as an object) that tends to manifest in the waking state as one becomes more relaxed and aligned. Almost like the anandamayakosha oozes into the waking state.

I would say both and neither. Both because usually intellectual understanding and experiences are necessary in my opinion (nor do I buy the dichotomy), and neither because neither one really delivers. Many people seem to spend their lives chasing one or the other. It is not a conclusion, just my opinion. And what I mean is, what appears to some as an act of Grace appears to others as causes/conditions. I've been on both sides of the line, personally, but most of it is inference.

A good start would be removing the two ignorances, including the ignorance that there is an individual. What some call grace, others call causes and conditions that are not fully apparent. Which of course is still misleading.

I've been doing this recently. That's the interesting thing about this forum. Over time, you can really appreciate the changes we undergo. I will read a post--- good, bad, or ugly and then look to see who wrote it. Sometimes I'm surprised to see that I wrote it. I've gotten messages about past posts that I cannot even reconstruct presently. People (and I don't my past self from this) have a difficult time getting rebirth/reincarnation--- and wondering why we don't have past life memories--- but here we are going through ongoing massive rebirths all the time. Another reason to let it go and trust the "void."

As for enlightenment being easy, I'm curious: do we think it is more problematic to set the bar too low or too high? It seems to me that setting the bar too low will block development in a way setting the bar too high would not.

Hopefully not regular service? I've never had a good experience with the dealership. Funny synchronicity.

It does until you have gained some initial recognition and familiarity. It is almost like anything else: sex, being a parent, serving as a police officer or in the military. When you have some familiarity, you can recognize in some one else if they have shared the same experience as you. You can even instantly "get" a joke or a meme that summarizes what it is like. Now there are always people who can't obtain these. Sometimes, these people like to become self-described experts. They may read lots of books, watch movies, do internet research. They may form very strong ideas about what it is like to have sex, be a parent, or serve in the military even though they have not ever done these things. They might learn to shoot a gun or adopt a dog or create an imaginary dream partner of some sort. These are often lonely people, because most of what I describe involve other people and a strong face to face commitment with other people. They sometimes develop very elaborate theories about whatever thing they haven't experienced. Sometimes, they will be insulting and reductionistic to the "other" group: men who have relationships women are "jerks" and women are just "ho's" for example. A security guard might insist they are "high speed" just like "the real police" and "civilians" just don't understand. There is usually an undercurrent of bitterness, which is externalized as insults, dehumanization, or putting down others. When they say something like "Well, losing a dog is like losing a child" or "You gotta shoot first and ask questions later" they instantly lose all credibility. They may call parents "bad parents" because you can't train a child like a dog, or criticize military people who make mistakes under the pressure of combat or life. You may attempt to explain why this isn't so, but it won't matter-- you're "wrong", "deluded," etc. There is a very narrow ideal or understanding that usually only they have, i.e., cult thinking. On the other hand, some one may have a completely different background, country of birth, or religious affiliation and when they write something, it is recognizable. They may have studied with lineage Daoists, have a Vedanta or Theravada or Zen or Christian background, but seem to refer to the exact things a Tibetan teacher points out. It's uncanny. Unfortunately, unless and until there is an initial opening, or recognition, it will likely remain incommunicable and undefinable.

I totally agree. Currently, I would suggest it is both/and rather than either/or. The following is only my opinion. Relative compassion -- the kind we cultivate-- is for the acquired mind/conventional self composed of our habitual thoughts, delusions, etc. Once we connect with the primordial mind, i.e. our buddhanature, then true compassion spontaneously manifests and unfolds. I think this is most clearly laid out for me in Cleary's comments in the back of the Secret of the Golden Flower. I must have read those countless times some years back but it never clicked. Cultivation is for the acquired spirit. "True" compassion spontaneously emerges from the original spirit. We usually think of this as black or white, but I think it is more on a spectrum. Cleary's framework fits well IME if you look at his four relations between guest and host. As a sentient being proceeds from guest within guest to host within host, the practice would become less effortful and more effortless. For Mahamudra language, this type of relative cultivation is post-meditation practice. I think an error is using methods to try to develop the original spirit, or using effortlessness on the acquired spirit. Each has their own place/time.

To eliminate ignorance and expand Buddha qualities (compassion, wisdom, etc.). Anyway, I'm no evangelist. It is clear you have your own aim, so... there you have it.

I think that's a thin reed. I also think it really gets down to practice. TRIGGER WARNING: SCHOLARLY CONCEPTS AHEAD Certainly Vasubandhu taught the alaya was individual, and this is preserved in the Tibetan schools. I think at the end of the day, one needs to be walked through this experientially, but this is a wikipedia article quoting a scholarly non-practitioners, so let me quote some scholarly practitioners (which view, I would say, aligns with the Four Noble Truths unlike the neo-Platonic view suggested). Initially, when Buddhist texts were being interpreted, many translators lacked an understanding of the context and general culture, so tended to conclude that Yogacara was akin to Western idealism. John Myrrdhin Reynolds points this out regarding E.E. Evans Wenz in his "Self-Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness" for example. It seems to me that McEvilly (a art historian by trade, and not an expert in any type of Buddhism) takes in this analysis in his book. In other words, his scholarship in some regards is a bit dated (I think he makes a stronger case for the connections with Pyrrho and Madhyamaka). In his book, McEvilly states that Vasubandhu's alaya is close to Plotinus depiction of mind, and subsequent developments bring it in line with this. For example, Dan Lusthaus: http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro.html Karl Brunnholzl wrote an epic book on this, Center of the Sunless Sky, specifically to refute much of this from an Indo-Tibetan point of view. His conclusion: One footnote: McEvilly cites in his book to the Shelung school. Most of the wikipedia articles on this cite to one article by Michael Radich. Radich goes to the source, Paramartha, who clearly says that the alaya is destroyed: But later authors just made up their own ideas: However, I would bet that even these later authors would agree that the seeds of whatever consciousness need to be transformed or purified, and not preserved as suggested here.

Many Theravadans reject Mahayana-style nonduality. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html Some don't. There's really no one approach.

This sounds like spiritualizing the ego (ahamkara for Vedanta, the mano- and alaya-vijnana in Mahayana), i.e., a subtle trap.

I'm not sure that is true. Enjoy tilting at those windmills. I do think you have a lot to share, not sure about the delivery.

Oh, TT, you don't get that ming is merely an expression of hsing, and that one can "trace back the radiance" so to speak?

Great points. I think what generally distinguishes a cult from a religion in my view is the aim. Both tend to use the same or similar methods, but the aim is much different. For example, "live a Christ centered life." It is interesting to me on how uncanny the descriptions of yuan shen returning to the throne and setting the kingdom right in the Secret of the Golden Flower are to the Christian symbology of Christ returning to the throne and restoring everything on earth. So let's say, Christ is our own fundamental mind. That makes sense to lead a Christ centered life, to render everything unto Christ, to allow Christ to guide us moment to moment. Then we may overflow with love and healing energy and all the various things promised. Now let's say we put in there the acquired mind, the thoughts, habits, and personality traits of a particular person or set of people. Now we live a "Jim Jones" centered life. We listen to Jim Jones, we give everything to Jim Jones, we follow and do everything under the guidance and direction of Jim Jones, we render everything unto Jim Jones. That's a cult (and idolatry--- substituting the created for the uncreated). Of course, it doesn't even have to be another person.

Let me address what I see is the core issue: I would say there's no anything without hsing. But here's the thing (and I know you won't like this): words are slippery buggers. They can mean different, or even many things, depending on context. Words are, by their very nature, limitations, approximations, false to one degree or another (just like any other limited thing). Not understanding this is a red flag in itself, at least from certain Mahayana Buddhist POV. There are common meanings, lower meanings, higher meanings, etc. in every spiritual tradition. Core Buddhist terms have at least FOUR meanings, if not more if you count provisional and ultimate meanings (and don't be fooled, they aren't really ultimate). So the same term has various (usually deeper) meanings depending on the context in which it is used and the being to which the teaching is being aimed. The higher (are usually simpler) meanings are more aligned with the fundamental nature. Definitions and shades of meaning are, of course, also addressed in the book. As always, people can believe what they want.

As noted:

The Buddha said that enlightenment is the end of suffering. Most other ways to describe it are an invitation to create various idols. In Chan/Zen, it is often said to be attaining or seeing the Dao or seeing xing (見性) and becoming a Buddha. In this way, there may or may not be a difference between an initial flash and a full flowering, depending on who you ask.

Nice points and good descriptions. I think the idea is you start with grosser movements to get the feel, but then you refine them. This is how it is done with vase breathing and also whole breathing (where the you also expand up the back), for example. But I could be wrong-- -I've never been an "indoor student" in any martial arts. I found that breathing low tended to develop naturally when I was using my lower breath movements as a meditation focal point. I've learned a lot of different breathing techniques, but this is the first one that gives me a strong "rotating" sensation (among other things).

There is a key difference. The Dao De Jing, for example, isn't creating a lofty fictional world in the mind of the author. Rather, it is describing a set of principles that apply very widely that one can verify for oneself. In other words, it can be a living text rather than a set of dead words. A lot of people argue about whether the DDJ is a political text, a cultivation text, a text about nature, etc, which misses the point. Universal principles apply... well... universally. Eh, I don't know about that. One might argue that some may pass of qigong as neidan. They may be ineffective, they may work on some level, or they can be very harmful. But even regular meditation is like this, as is religion, politics, our thoughts etc. See DDJ 38.

Interesting that one of the presentations criticizes Yin Shih Tzu (who is quoted at length in the Charles Luk Chinese Meditation and has several translations floating around) for failing to "open the crown."

Are you part of a small, elite group who is privy to a truth that everyone else lacks? Is there an elaborate system of explanations setting forth how "things really are?" Is there a lot of talk about how everyone else is lost, a lot of "us" and "them" type talk?

Uh.... what? Really? I was just sitting outside this morning and there was light everywhere. And I didn't have an ounce of wax.