forestofclarity

I wonder if you would speak to the difference between suppression and liberation.

I've been listening to some of these audios --- interesting. However, a lot of stuff is left out--- like divination, and basic stuff on yin-yang and 5E. Anyone have any resources for further study?

This is work that is alive, Effervescent, free, liberated, Gloriously enlightened, True, and great. Do you think it can be attained By people who shut the door And sit quietly with blank minds? - Liu I-Ming

Meditation is like brain surgery. Anyone who thinks it is without danger, in my mind, is simply thinking foolishly. Even basic mindfulness practice, which threatens to habits of mind that keep us asleep and ignorant, can bring up pain, discomfort, and strong resistance. The teachings are full of tricks and traps of the ego (and others). Meditation in my experience tends to quicken the fruition of certain karmic seeds. A lot of negative stuff comes out. The solution, of course, is not to stop meditating, but to realize that we are dealing with powerful techniques that should be used with respect. Electricity is dangerous, but most of us here use it every day. Driving is dangerous. Swimming is dangerous. However, meditation/contemplation practices are far more beneficial than any of these.

I wouldn't say this because it tends to run counter to my experience, and also to the recommendations of sages I respect. However, rather than dismiss it out of hand, I was wondering if you had some experience in this area.

Why do you say that?

It's because saviors can't save us, they can only show us the way. The fact that the overwhelming majority of people choose not to do the work to save themselves, well, that's on each of us.

I would say that immortality is not something you gain, but something you already are. We cannot become infinite by adding finite things to ourselves--- rather, it is my belief that we are already infinite but fail to realize it. So I would say that we don't gain immortality, but lose our mortality. Pursue knowledge, daily gain Pursue Tao, daily loss

This used to happen to me all the time when I first started meditating--- as soon as I sat down, the phone would ring, my pager would buzz, the doorbell would go off, something would happen. I read that this was fairly common, and over time, these things stopped happening. It still happens every so often. Who is to say that the source of our thoughts is different from the source of so-called external events?

So no sticking around to help others?

I don't think so. Do you remember what you had for breakfast forty nine days ago? No, but does that mean it was unconscious? Or if at first you don't recall a dream, and then you do, does it suddenly shift from unconscious to conscious? Stephen LaBerge has done intensive scientific testing on dreaming subjects. Measuring brain activity and correlating this to dreaming, he estimates we have many dreams in a night.

Shhh! If this gets out, what will people do? Practice?

I don't agree with Sam Harris. It strikes me that an prejudice against religion is just another prejudice, but because we dress it up in "spiritual science" language or whatever, it appears more acceptable. The solution to division is not more division, but acceptance, just as the solution to hate is not more hate, but love. The Xin Xin Ming says the Great Way is not difficult, if only there is no picking and choosing.

I think part of the issue is the Buddhabums here tend to focus more on the wisdom of emptiness side of Buddhism and less on the love and compassion side of Buddhism. What happens is that we get a stilted, one sided view of the dharma. Joy is very important in Buddhism--- it is a factor of the jhanas and also one of the seven factors of enlightenment. Look at all the statutes of Buddha: there is a smile. According to the Buddha, all things are impermanent. That means, they cannot last. How could the Buddha use joy as the basis of his teaching when it cannot last? It would be a different teaching. Suffering, however, can be ended. Things cannot last forever, but they can vanish forever.

Actually, this is a mistake. The first Noble Truth is the existence of suffering, not that all life is suffering. If you look closely at the Pali suttas, specific things cause suffering, such as being with what you don't like and being apart from what you like. There is suffering. That is the first Noble Truth. Why is there suffering? Craving. Tanha, the thirst. Ending this ends suffering. To do this, you follow the eightfold path. That is the Buddha's teaching. Nothing gloomy here. If you're happy all the time, well then the Buddha has nothing to say. The Buddha's teaching is for those who experience suffering. On a side note, I would note that when Michael Winn's wife died, he posted on his website that he wasn't sad, because he felt he had done some energy exercise allowing him to subsume her or something. That struck me as sad. Of course you'll be sad when your wife dies. It hurts. Ignoring that, or repressing that, or focusing on joy is simply not being realistic.

Yet strangely, I have noticed that those who practice only one or the other often (but not always) seem to have no idea about the other side.

AW, There is a lot of differences in interpretation with Buddhism. There are hard jhanas and soft jhanas, sutta jhanas and visuddhamagga jhanas, expansive modes of concentration and restricted modes of concentration, all of which fall under the label, shamatha. For vipassana, in addition to Goenka and Mahasi, you also have the Thai forest tradition relating to Ajahn Chah. Bhante G's monastics teach a more classical type of vipassana. Others teach the four foundations of mindfulness. Shiznen Young has a vipassana/Zen hybrid. You also have Thich Nhat Hanh style mindfulness in a Zen tradition, and Tibetan Buddhist practice. There are many, many different types of both. There is no general consensus or agreement on them. Good vipassana has as its object insight into the workings of reality and/or your body/mind. Qi gong is more about opening and developing energy channels. While I think the two work together, they are very different. I've had qigong openings while on vipassana retreats, and I've had vipassana-type insights after doing qigong. If you have the time/money, I would probably suggest checking out both.

Just to add on and twist this back to Taoism: One of the reasons that the traditions use these phrases is also to remind us that what we're seeking is within us. The Tang Zen masters of old were always going on and on about students seeking a Buddha outside themselves. There are important aspects to this model. If we already are what we are seeking, then we need not look outside ourselves for a savior, an experience, or any thing like that. Outer teachings can help us guide within, but we cannot rely on them to save us. Another important aspect is the idea of loss. As the Tao Te Ching says: Pursue knowledge, daily gain Pursue Tao, daily loss Loss and more loss Until one reaches unattached action With unattached action, there is nothing one cannot do Take the world by constantly applying non-interference The one who interferes is not qualified to take the world So the spiritual path is not about adding onto what we are, but uncovering it.

I just draw the dots. You all draw the connections.

Nicely put.

This depends on a duality. In order for something to be "independent", it must be independent from something ELSE. If there is nothing else, then concepts of independent or dependent don't make sense.

All, I will say up front that I reject all of your sources. I don't care who supposedly said what, be that a Buddhist scholar, some one's anonymous internet guru, or the Buddha himself. What I care about is how their statements measure up in my (or your) experience. I find these Buddhist/Advaita debates degenerate into a war of sources, but who cares? The important thing is personal experience. I have faith in the Buddha not because everyone says he is wise, he's the figurehead of a religion, or that his ideas make philosophical sense. Bottom line is, we have no clue what the Buddha actually said. However, we do have a cluster of ideas we call Buddhism. Applying these ideas to my experience, I find that they are verified. Accordingly, I tend to trust these statements, and am more open about the ones I have not yet verified. This is faith based on experience. Anything that comes across experience is impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfying. Likewise, I have verified the claims of Advaita by looking into my direct experience. I have not falsified any claims or statements made by Advaitins. Advaitins have helped me understand the illusory nature of dual distinctions, mistakes made regarding a self, and so forth. D. Loy's article makes the point that Buddhism looks at the world from the inside out. Being here, looking around, we find no permanent, enduring, anything. So the Buddhists say, there is no self. It would be wrong to use this to deny the knowing that occurs, because you can see for yourself that there is knowing. The world is not a non-sentient machine. Advaita looks from the "outside" in. There is only one thing as all dualities break down. If you deny that there is one, then you deny there is anything existing. If you agree that something exists, and that all dualities break down, you are left with a non-dual reality that Advaita calls "the Self". You may reject the notion that anything exists, but your very rejection is proof of existence. The Advaita Self is actually so refined that it doesn't make sense to even call it a self at all.

Xabir, I think you missed the whole point of Loy's article.

David Bourland, in his article E-Prime! The Fundamentals, suggests that the verb "to be" in our language causes sloppy, uncritical, and wrong thinking. When we say, "the apple is red", it appears that we state a fact, but we do not. If we look at the apple through an electron microscope, it would not appear red. Saying that "the apple is red" fixes redness as a static quality of the apple. In reality, "red" depends on many changing factors: the presence of a working eye, the presence of light, etc. In fact, he suggests that the verb "to be" causes us to speak of the world as a fixed, static phenomenon rather than a fluid dynamic happening. In order to investigate this further, I propose that we declare March "International E-Prime Month" in honor of the death of Korzybski, his mentor who died 45 years ago on March 1. I personally will try to write all of my posts in E-Prime. E-Prime has only one rule: Any other takers?