forestofclarity

It seems to me that De is what spontaneously happens as one comes more into alignment with the Dao. Accordingly, I would expect that it appear during the process of reversal as a confirmation. I hear a lot of discussions about De but very few about (or displaying) the "lower" virtues such as benevolence, etc. which should presumably precede it. It seems people want to jump to effortlessness without having made any sort of initial effort. It reminds me of long, rambling screeds about higher states of concentration.

Reminds me somewhat of this: Any thoughts?

Oh? Sounds like a pretty bad ass Zen master to me. (from Peter N. Gregory, Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism) Historical observation from the next page: But again, everyone is free to think as they wish.

I read about half of Brothers Karamazov. I thought it was going to be long, slow reading but strangely it pulled me in like a novel. I think it appeals to a certain type of person who feels pulled between heaven and earth, so to speak. A good reminder that I should probably continue it. The problem of evil is probably the strongest (and some say only) formal argument against the existence of a higher power. I would suggest it can be dissolved by reframing what action is and what God is.

Another view: Zen is not the denial of Buddhism, but the fulfillment of it. Zen is not presented apart from Buddhism, rather it is thoroughly imbued by it. Buddhism provides a context for Zen teaching, without which it cannot be revealed. Followed by 30 years of practice. Nansen's teacher, Masu aka Baso tells us what ordinary mind refers to: trans Poceski Criticizing the later Hongzhou school, Zongmi writes: trans Broughton As the Xin Xin Ming states: trans Clark Of course, one is free to believe what one wishes.

I get it, I've been there. It's because typically when you try to explain it, people just form an idea about it and cling desperately to that idea. Then it makes it even worse than if you said nothing at all. I can let people know what I have found helpful, but since we're all different, some one else may see it differently. Plus, there's no skirting the work. I am amazed at going back over things I encountered 10 or 20 years ago and completely missed the point at the time. Having said that, I share resources I find helpful and engaging in discussions that may benefit myself or others. I would say it is really a matter of recognition rather than a specific list of criteria. Like when you recognize an old friend even if they changed their hair color or happen to be speaking another language. You know it when you see it. But to break it down in mental pieces, what I look for is whether what is being described it clear, accurate, and thorough with what I know to be the case, having spent some time in my own study and practice. Then I give extra points for avoiding common mistakes and errors. When it clarifies some matter was not entirely clear before, I would say it is excellent. Obviously, one's opinion may change depending on where they are. There are other things, but I don't want to get into them. If people think it's dumb, that's cool. If people enjoy it, that's cool, too. I'm not going to get upset because some one tells me the sky is red with purple polka dots or I have an elephant head.

I haven't gotten that far yet: I'm at the Xing phase. If this book is accurate, and if my reading of it is accurate, then most neidan instructions I've received, from sundry and various masters, haven't even established the initial point. As the Chan masters say, miss by an hair...

Ge Guolong's commentary is excellent, and makes up much of the book. And if such things are neither known nor made available (I think we're still waiting for some one to "stop being lazy" and post their translation of Taoist Yoga on Amazon), then it might as well not even exist.

Evidently, this book was picked up by Shambhala and published as Taoist Internal Alchemy. I've been waiting for five years for it and must have missed the updates. I was hesitant backing it, due to my Buddhist-centered practice. I thought this might be another book of common sense moral admonitions, or semi-vague but intriguing interpretations of Daoist symbology. I will say it has, so far, exceeded all of my expectations. I'm glad I was able to have a very small part in the causes and conditions that brought this into being. Great material, keen insights, wonderful English presentation.

A few rambling thoughts: What makes you think you don't already have such a presence? What I've found in my life is that something some one said or done may not have manifested anything in the moment something was said or done, but sometimes much, much later. I think this is one of the reasons that the Gita says that we should practice without concern for the fruits (i.e. achieving a specific result), in part because we don't have the all encompassing wisdom to know what those results will be. Who knows where your partner would be without everything you've already done? In other words, it is hard to judge the results of our actions because we have very little information. But I do think that people tend to manifest outside how they are inside. It might be body language, subliminal cues, qi fields, etc. You can often see this with not only how other adults react, but also children and animals who don't tend to have as many personal barriers in place. In addition, we are able to stand aside from our acquired mind and connect to something deeper, I think we naturally respond to what the situation calls for. Short of that, we can also cultivate relative states that are helpful, but I think it is different for different people. For some, meditative introspection may be the way. For others, it may be invoking feelings of loving kindness and spreading it throughout the body and mind, or doing tonglen. For others, engaging in selfless service so thoroughly that the sense of self is consumed. For others, it might be connecting through church, etc. So I would say we might try to find the practices that connect with us and bring out these positive qualities, and practice them without judging external results.

The way I understand the basic theory is that the mantra is itself a manifestation of the divine being. To chant the mantra is the literally invoke the being (i.e. a specific form of God)--- the divine being and the mantra are not different. In addition, it is said that the mantra itself contains specific vibrations that alter one's own being in a specific way depending on the mantra. So this is different then charging feeling into a specific set of words. I personally hate mantras but they've generally been powerful in my experience.

I think this is the theory and appears how many of the classics have put it. However, in my experience it rarely if ever happens in real life, at least for me over the past few decades. Typically, I've seen both positive and negative qualities enhanced in energy based systems. Many of these teachers appear to develop very strong views and become incensed at any challenge to their views or their egos. Others are very money motivated, and turn their students into cheap labor for their business and/or into a spiritual cult in which dogmas may not be questioned. Some offer promises that come with higher and more exorbitant fees. Usually, the body/energy practices are presented as preliminary, with a future promise for spiritual teachings that either never come or fail to express any basic understanding of how the mind works. Of course, this issue is not necessarily uncommon even with teachers who begin with morality and wisdom, either. I think the bottom line is that as energy increases, the negative traits tend to manifest more strongly, and as boundaries dissolve, there is less holding them back. And few people jump directly to full enlightenment, so inevitably one is going to encounter issues even with people who have some degree of awakening. Just my views.

IIRC, a lot of it traces back to modern Western sources like Barbara Keesling. Mantak Chia repackaged it as Daoist, others repackaged it as Shaiva Tantra.

dance and shake it out turn around and see what's left luminosity

This is more or less the shift from Sutra to Tantra (or Chan/Zen) in my mind. I think it is accurate to say that Nagarjuna focuses on the emptiness aspect, but there is also the aspect of appearances. How these are dealt with depends on the school of Buddhism.

It's been a while, but I recall generally ψυχή (psychē) as soul and πνεῦμα‎ (pneuma) as spirit, such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

Any definition will arguably too limited, too expansive, or rely on unacceptable premises. But to play along, I would offer than an idea is a thought or set of thoughts that are representational.

Just going to leave this here (even he knows he's BS'ing):

Beth Upton said all this?

In case the name "Zen Master Rama" doesn't clue one in: he's a well known scammer who started a quasi-sex cult, grifted about $25 million, and then drowned with a stomach full of valium.

Well, the newer theories include "predictive processing" in which the brain/mind speculates on a lot of the input:

I've been enjoying this podcast. A good walk through of Christian Mysticism, from roots to branches through history. https://shows.acast.com/the-christian-mysticism-podcast/episodes The main speaker also has an interesting book on historical miracles as well. They Flew

We have non-conceptual experiences all the time, they are the qualia or basic building blocks of experience. From at least one Buddhist perspective, the pure taste of ice cream is non-conceptual, the coldness, the light solidity and soft texture of the cone, etc. (form). The feeling of liking it may then arise (feeling), the beginning of concepts, and everything that follows is conceptual. Then the mind pulls all these sensations together (perception). Then there's all sorts of thoughts, feelings, activities and so on, the buzzing reverie of ideas, feelings, and actions (impulses). The ice cream cone, you, the background is all pulled into a coherent picture: I am enjoying this ice cream cone (consciousness) and want to have another bite. But what if instead of getting caught up in the buzzing reverie, we let that initial taste arise and then fade? What if we let our attention dissolve the same way the taste dissolves? What if we don't draw all the lines around the cone, ourselves, and the background, and run down all the habitual paths?

The unholy trinity of Everand, Kindle, and Scribd mostly. But I'm also buying hard copies. It seems very syncretic. It also includes things I have not seen openly described. Are there other Advaita texts using goddess symbology? I get the point, although in some teachings, duality is polarity. In other words, there is always a third that unified the two. The other is eliminating the distinction between imminent and transcendent. The transcendent is imminent, and the imminent is transcendent, and there is really isn't a bright line to distinguish one from the other. But the point I was driving at is that the practices changes depending on your conceptual view of the absolute. If one feels they must reach a permanent state of nirvikalpa samadhi, a la Samkhya, then it makes sense to renounce the world, still thoughts, etc. On the other hand, if everything is divine, then endless creation is not problematic. In these instances, nothing to done to avoid or eliminate various states and objects.