forestofclarity

Here's a question. There is a cadre of folks who claim that much (or all) of this is physical. They talk about aligning the structure, leveraging the ground, etc. I've found I can reproduce some "qi" tricks this way--- such as grounding a mobile chair into the floor. There is another cadre of folks who state that post-heavenly intention is unnecessary, and potentially distorting. They say that when properly connected, the inner energies align on their own. Wouldn't a happy medium be to adopt the physical alignments/techniques, relax and open, connect to the essence of mind, and just let it unfold?

I think you just go back to the 4 Noble Truths. The cause of suffering is tanha, thirst, craving, etc. The cessation of suffering is to end this thirst. This thirst leads to clinging (upadana), or fuel for the whole cycle of suffering. Buddhism in a nutshell is radical non-clinging. It is letting go, not finding something better to cling to. This is a key point many people apparently miss. If you grab something with you hand, forming a fist, and now you can't move freely, the solution is not to grab onto something brighter, cleaner or better. You need to let go of everything in order to move freely. People often seem to think that if they let go, everything will fall apart--- as though the thirsting/grasping/clinging is somehow keeping the world together.

Yes, here is one sutta: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin More questions not answered: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.008.than.html

Basically, in the suttas, the summation is that all phenomenon (dhamma) or skandhas are not self (anatta). https://suttacentral.net/sn22.90/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin There is a dispute in SE Asian Theravada with some who adhere to suttas, some who adhere to Abhidhamma, and the Thai forest tradition. One view: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html Some counter-arguments here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/not-self-and-no-self-and-possibly-non-self-totally-different/4902 If one wants to go beyond a merely intellectual view, then inevitably one would have to spend time in practice.

Sounds like a beautiful experience. I'd suggest nothing wrong with savoring the wonder and the opening, and seeing how it unfolds. The acquired mind wants to name and frame everything into a fixed story IME.

I think it is a variation of a basic technique that occurs over and over in Tantric-type traditions. Basically, it is allowing the grosser to change into the more subtle. There are all types of different names: divinizing, transmuting, refining, liberating, digesting, spiritualizing, raising, etc. From a Western alchemical view, however, one might say that needs gold to transmute base metals into gold, so these popularized methods is more transmuting iron into copper in my opinion.

I would say that anxiety is a natural manifestation of the innate potential of mind when it is ignorant of its own nature. Similarly, tranquility is a natural manifestation of the innate potential of mind when it recognizes its own nature.

I think the source is omnipresent, but not necessarily the manifestation. I am tempted to go a step further and say, the source is omnipresent, but may manifest as either a fundamental tranquility or anxiety, depending on which way it goes.

From the POV of certain spiritual traditions, without ignorance (i.e. stupidity) we wouldn't have all the wondrous manifestations around us: Italian cappuccinos, golden doodles, or hand holding. This is the exact plot of Mike Judge's Idiocracy.

I think this is something one has to unfortunately learn oneself. I remember in the early days of the Tao Bums the members were always on the lookout for the latest, greatest, easiest, and most powerful paths. Over time, it seems that most members who have developed insight seem to have ended up in more traditional systems. Others who didn't seem to have burned up or burned out. But I think we need to take a broader view of the path. A broader view includes side paths, false starts, errors, and just living life. These things are not a waste of time, but a part of a larger movement toward (in my opinion) inevitable realization. As the Gita notes, no effort is ever wasted.

Swami S recently did a presentation on enlightenment recently, and made an important distinction between an initial realization and full blown enlightenment. The first 28 minutes covers this.

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.