forestofclarity

Gee, I wonder why more people aren't signing up to be stripped, handcuffed, and probed by strangers in a hotel room. Seriously? I wouldn't do this to prove that I can speak English. The fact that you can't see how people would not be willing to sign up for such a thing is troubling and quite frankly undermines the credibility of these posts. Nor could one expect anyone who mastered fa qi to subject themselves to testing by amateurs anyway, or professional debunkers. No matter what you do, it won't be enough. In addition, you've already made it clear that you prefer to hide behind anonymous rumors and innuendoes rather than give people a chance to rebut your allegations. And anyway, the gold standard isn't scientific testing, but self replication. Without being able to learn it yourself, there will always be doubts. Plus, who cares if some one else can do it, if you can't ever learn to do it yourself?

Thanks for flagging, it is like a greatest hits compilation. 1,500 questions!

My apologies--- I asked a serious question and thought I received a serious answer.

The issue is that a set of finite, impermanent causes or conditions produce finite, impermanent effects. They cannot give rise to a permanent, non-finite result-- it would be like fire producing darkness, or constructing space out of wood and steel. Intense spiritual experiences, while certainly valuable to the seeker, do not necessarily carry any truth value. Plenty of people have intense and ecstatic experiences that they claim validate tradition claims. In addition, for every person who feels an intense presence in around a realized person, many people feel nothing. We can say that they lack sensitivity, but really we are just valuing our subjective impressions over others.

How do you know that the moon is made of green cheese? How did you arrive at that conclusion? How confident are you? Unless you are saying that people who claim to have experienced siddhis or abnormal events are somehow beyond all reason and logic, to which I would ask the same questions above.

It is interesting to use the word "permanent"--- how do you know the transformation is permanent and not going to "run out of steam" say, under intense torture, brain damage, chemical imbalances, death, or at some distant point in the future?

I wasn't aiming at your posts--- I find that your posts are always open minded, curious, and respectful.

This is a point that is often overlooked. In this case, either one has a narrow view of the world, or the world is in fact narrow. In a narrow world, there is only a certain set of facts that can be true, and must be true for everyone. This is the source of much conflict and suffering. In the Mahayana Buddhist worldview, there is no objective, underlying reality. The world is a dream or a magical display, and what we call reality is really a group dream. Accordingly, the world is much more fluid, and many things may be true depending on one's karmic view. For example, a day at the beach to a human is often relaxing, but would be fire and molten metal to a hell being. How the world is experienced depends on one's karmic propensities. Our world becomes more heavenly or hell-like in harmony with our view. Which is not to say that any dream is entirely subjective: each dream has its own set of rules. Personally, I have noticed that people on the more awakened side of the spectrum have a wider view all around. So I would say the right answer is the one that works for you and delivers authentic results, given your current karmic makeup. Not everyone has the ability to progress with hard core jhanas, and not everyone has the ability to make use of sudden awakening techniques. This is why we have so many teachers and teachings--- it is the generosity of the divine. A narrow view in that sense denies such generosity.

Yang admits he is bipolar, while also setting forth his meditation technique (liked from his webpage): https://www.instagram.com/p/CLHr4AugTp3/?hl=en I don't see any relevance of his practice to Buddhism, Dzogchen, etc. based on this quote.

Please keep in mind I am only sharing my limited opinion. I don't equate authorization to teach with realization. Again, familiarity with the traditional commentaries shows this is not a modern issue, but has been around all along. The tradition gives a base line by which you can see where people tend to deviate (in both directions, some like to raise the bar as well). However, if one rejects traditional Buddhist criteria, then it strikes me we are no longer talking about Buddhism. In this regard, a teacher can only lead you to what they have realized. To determine whether what they have realized is in line with the Buddhist tradition, the criteria must be the traditional criteria, which represents the combined knowledge of those who have come before in that tradition. In my case, I do think there are people who meet the criteria. They all happen to be within the tradition. Personally, I eventually found I had to choose whether I wanted cool phenomenon, or whether I wanted to pursue the end of suffering. For me, once my aim was clear, things started to fall into place. I'm not saying you are in that juncture, but some one else may be.

A few issues: first, to focus on signposts as attainments, and to openly discuss and spread information around, does a great disservice. This is because whatever you want, your mind will try to manufacture and give you. As the mind becomes closer to the source, its ability to manifest various things become more powerful. Instead of an authentic experience, you are in danger of having a similar, but inauthentic state. This is one reason signs are not openly discussed. One can have many "signs" of realization but lack the fundamental transformation of authentic realization. The aim then becomes less of a Buddhist one, which is the elimination of suffering and the proliferation of buddha qualities, and more about some temporary arising event that arises due to conditions. According to the Buddha's teachings, if arises due to conditions, it is impermanent and will pass when conditions cease, it is a part of samsara (even if the end occurs at the end of a life or multiple lives). The goal is not the build a better samsara, but to end suffering. The ending of suffering is unconditioned. Now being borderless and/or losing a sense of self itself is a state that can be accessed multiple ways, including practice, drugs and mental breakdowns. It can be positive or negative, and occurs inside and outside of meditation communities. The same goes with many other states promoted as signs of awakening. Typically, the more aggressive, forceful, and directed methods result in negatives (see the Cheetah House for numerous examples). This is one reason why the traditional Buddhist criteria is set forth the way it is (i.e., negative states of greed, anger, and delusion decrease, and positive states of joy, equanimity, and wisdom increase).

Regarding Ingram, I think Bikkhu Analayo wrote a great article on the matter in which he stacks the teachings against traditional Theravadan commentaries. Overall, having practiced in this way and interacted with many practitioners, I do think it is a method that produces a lot of interesting experiences but lacks the transformative insights key to Buddhist practice: Meditation Maps, Attainment Claims, and the Adversities of Mindfulness (springer.com)

The Catholics certainly noticed. Father Tiso for one, if you're interested. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/252752/rainbow-body-and-resurrection-by-francis-v-tiso/

Well, it is not really a "secret" so much as it is generally difficult to attain outside of full time practice and retreat. It is written about in the traditional scriptures and commentaries (which is one reason it helps to be familiar with them). Jhana is a bit of a catch-call-- spiritual practice, medical practice, sexual redirection practice for celibates, etc. To some extent, there is a similar process at play in our own lives as we are refreshed by deep sleep, which to most of us is a state of ignorance unless you practice some sort of night time yoga. However, it is not clear to me that energy manifests the same way in Theravada Buddhism as it does in Daoism or other paths. So for example, I don't think you build/concentrate a dan tian by achieving jhanic states. Nirdoha is not seen as the goal for Mahayana paths, and in fact is an obstacle to the Mahayana way, which is often described as becoming a Buddha with the power to help sentient beings. Which, to answer Dwai's inquiry earlier, is the point of being able to manifest in illusion post-enlightenment from a Buddhist POV. There are bodhisattas and Buddhas in Theravada, but they are a little differently structured in my experience.

That's great that something positive came from your negative experience. I am certain that you and others can find a better path.

It is very interesting to see where people ended up after some time-- be it connecting to more traditional sources or spiraling into madness with DIY systems. It will be more interesting in another 10-20 years if the forum is still around.

I would generally agree. I think that Tantra emerged primarily as a means of spiritual practice for lay persons, and over time it got co-opted into the larger Tibetan monastic institutions, at least in the Sarma traditions. In addition, the Tibetans were strong collectors, which means they essentially catalogued and kept almost every practice known to them through history. In addition, Tibetan Buddhism tends to be quite conservative and accordingly slow to change in some respects. However, I do think this is already happening, although it it really varies from teacher to teacher. There have always been lay practitioners of Vajrayana stretching all the way back to India. From a shared melting pot, there emerged both Tantric Buddhism and Tantric Shaivism. In some sense, Vajrayana originated as a reaction and repudiation of the dominant Buddhist paradigms in India. The lay tradition survives in Tibet via ngakpas and other lay practitioners (there is also a strong history of lay Shaiva Tantric practitioners). For example, it is not unusual also to hear about lay people retiring into full time practice once their family is grown and moved away and achieving full enlightenment. There are also invisible yogis who practice secretly while living an ordinary life. The full gamut has always been present. Additionally, if you look closely, you will also see the full gamut of practices ranging from lengthy multi-day rituals to very concise, consolidated practices. In Tibet, the monastic institutions were a bit more stable and dominant as they also became the seat of political power as well as centers of learning. Accordingly, they came to dominate the public discourse.

Best wishes in your continued journey, SOTG.

So we're really talking about physical manifestations of subtle body accomplishments, rather than spiritual realization as set forth by Buddhist and Vedantic sources. Which isn't to diminish, dismiss or demean such things, but it seems like there's a bit of apples and oranges comparison.

Pathogenic release happens in Vajrayana as well. Individual practices have what we call "signs of accomplishment." Most of this stuff is kept under wraps, and not just to keep things under wraps. Silence is a bit of a protective measure when you are dealing with some of the more magical side of things. I would say it is better to keep an open mind about these things, even if you think they are impossible. I would also say that if you think something is impossible, it will be impossible. Accordingly, I am always a bit hesitant to let these sorts of limiting thoughts take root in my mind, and I would not recommend them to others. I used to think Vajrayana was kind of useless, but I don't anymore, which genuinely surprised me. Of course, from a Buddhist POV, every thing that manifests is due to ripening of karma, so this is important to keep in mind when delving into this stuff. At any rate, I hope your health improves or keeps improving. So these do not seem to be saying the same thing. What I have most often heard is the second, that energetic practices will enhance what is already there, so an jerk becomes a super jerk, and a saint becomes a super saint. This is the model that seems to reflect my personal experience and interactions with others. In addition, this is fairly in line with Buddhist tradition as well with the distinction between samadhi and prajna. Damo teaches more or less the same thing if I am recalling correctly, which is why Damo teaches both types of practices. However, the bottom line is that in my mind people may have power without wisdom, or wisdom and not display power. The first model is interesting-- Glenn Morris was of this opinion for example. I'm not sure what to make of it, because in a sense it would seem to deprive one of the opportunity to work with negative states of mind. In this case, they would be eliminated not through seeing through them, but through a biological or energetic process, which sounds to me like a healthier form of Prozac or soemthing. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't turn it down if offered. Which of course would not be, given I am a lazy, busy, part-time practitioner at best.

What I use are the big three: traditional scriptures/commentaries, a teacher’s guidance and personal experience. The first contains the experience of many who have come before, the second some one who has realized to some degree here and now, and your own path which is the path to come. Over time these generate an increasingly familiar roadmap of the mind and mental functions. The traditional literature and oral tradition contain signs to look for: the ten fetter model, the five wisdoms model, the six realms, etc. Some are not public. Some are multileveled. Some are basic, others are detailed. At first, they are a bit static and ideal, perhaps fragmented. You have lots of doubts. But you find your own map starts to develop. At first, the map is kind of small and basic, but as you study, listen, contemplate and practice it becomes more clear, expansive, and precise. At first, it is mostly a map of the mind in ignorance and suffering. You begin to learn a lot about this, how it feels inside and how it is expressed bodily. You choose teachers who aren’t always great and make a lot of errors. You start to see cause and effect. You become familiar with the suffering mind. But over time, this changes. As you journey along, you learn from your practice and errors, so discernment and intuition increase. Promised qualities like compassion and equanimity start to manifest. Scriptures come to life and reveal deeper meanings. As you become more discerning with teachers and teachings (or learn to trust your teacher more based on what you have verified) and this shows up in your practice. Your practice becomes less about what you heard or read and more about what you have directly experienced. Fleeting negative states become more stable, and stable negative states become more fleeting. Your habitual patterns and ways of seeing begin to change. Your view expands, your conduct becomes more benevolent, and your suffering decreases. You become familiar with another way of being—- as taught in alignment with the scriptures and oral tradition. What was ideal starts to become real. You start to catch glimpses of the coherence of the vision. So I would say it is more about recognizing what you have already studied, heard, and verified: in many cases, recognizing ignorance and suffering.

You asked before, so I'll let you have a crack: how did you assess and measure their development? More efficient way of doing what exactly? This is a key question.

You will find similar approaches within Vajrayana, for example, B. Allan Wallace. His definitions of jhana are similar. It is very difficult. Even people in full time retreat do fall short. These states are not unfamiliar to Vajrayana. I think Adam's view makes sense within his tradition, but it appears to be based on the assumptions of the tradition. For example, in the metaphor, two similar but qualitatively different things are used that can be easily mixed but difficult to separate: milk and water. This makes sense within the Theravada view, but not the view of Mahayana in my opinion. If the X and Y are not essentially different, then the metaphor does not hold. Let's say you are trying to learn about gold, and you into a gold smith's shop. You see gold candles, gold necklaces, gold rings. You're not going to say "Where's the gold?" because the gold is everywhere. Even if the gold is shaped into very beautiful and intricate patterns, it is still gold. Now let say you walk into the workshop, and you see the smith melting down the gold so that it is formless. This doesn't mean you've discovered "true" gold and the other gold is "false," it is just another state of gold. Even if you keep that gold melted for a week, there is no more and no purer gold than when it was a ring. Nor is the gold of use in that state: you can't take it with you, wear it, give it to your lover, etc. Once you realize gold is gold, it doesn't matter whether it is in a specific shape or not. Everything flows from the view in my mind (Step one on the eightfold path).

Interesting quote from Adam's book:

It is a bit ironic, but understandable. Everyone lowers the bar for other traditions: