forestofclarity

1 hour ago, dwai said:

That is the power of traditional wisdom systems. 

 

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Giles said:

 

Experientiallly or merely intellectually?

 

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. 

 

5 hours ago, Giles said:

 

Would you mind explaining how you reached the conclusion that Grace = causes and conditions please?

 

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. 

On 7/23/2024 at 8:48 AM, Giles said:

 

Would you mind elaborating please?

 

Specifically: who are "we", why do you believe that "we" have any ability to set a bar regarding enlightenment and what "development" do you believe needs to be done in order for an individual to be on the receiving end of Grace?

 

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.

 

15 hours ago, dwai said:

When I come across old posts/documents, they seem to have no relation to this person.

 

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.

 

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

I’m sitting outside the car dealership

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

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

letting the emptiness do instead of our own volition.

 

Funny synchronicity. 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

which presents some difficulties

 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Apech said:

The end goal is Buddhahood surely.  Then there is the debate about whether this is something you develop or is it something inherently present which you reveal.  In your previous post you quoted commentators talking about Buddha-nature - which in certain teachings (like Mahamudra) is the cause, path and goal - all at once.  Buddha qualities like bodhicitta arise directly from it - they can't be expanded by us - or that is how I see it.  We, for instance might try to be more compassionate in the normal sense but this is not the same as the Buddha's compassion

 

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. 

 

 

16 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

Then you should say what the end goal is in your understanding, yes?

 

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. 

17 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

According to Thomas McEvilley, although Vasubandhu had postulated numerous ālāya-vijñāna-s, a separate one for each individual person in the parakalpita,^{[note 2]} this multiplicity was later eliminated in the Fǎxiàng and Huayan metaphysics.^{[note 7]} These schools inculcated instead the doctrine of a single universal and eternal ālaya-vijñāna. This exalted enstatement of the ālāyavijñāna is described in the Fǎxiàng as "primordial unity".^[56]

 

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

 

Quote

When the Warehouse Consciousness finally ceases it is replaced by the Great Mirror Cognition (Mahādarśa-jñāna) that sees and reflects things just as they are, impartially, without exclusion, prejudice, anticipation, attachment, or distortion. The grasper-grasped relation has ceased. It should be noted that these "purified" cognitions all engage the world in immediate and effective ways by removing the self-bias, prejudice, and obstructions that had prevented one previously from perceiving beyond one's own narcissistic consciousness. When consciousness ends, true knowledge begins. Since enlightened cognition is nonconceptual its objects cannot be described. Thus Yogacarins provide no descriptions, much less ontological accounts, of what becomes evident in these types of enlightened cognitions, except to say they are 'pure' (of imaginative constructions).

 

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: 
 

Quote

 

Thus, the teachings on Buddha nature do not mean that there is some nucleus of Buddhahood enclosed in sentient beings behind the obscuring adventitious stains. Rather, our whole existence as sentient beings is in itself the sum of adventitious stains that float like clouds in the infinite, bright sky of Buddha nature, the luminous, open expanse of our mind that has no limits or boundaries. Once these clouds dissolve from the warm rays of the sun of wisdom shining in this space, nothing within sentient beings has been freed or developed, but there is just this radiant expanse without any reference points of cloudlike sentient beings or cloud-free Buddhas.

 

In brief, not only is there no statement in the texts of Maitreya, Asanga, and Vasubandhu that mind, the ground consciousness, any of the three natures, or even Buddha nature is really or ultimately existent, but this is precisely what is explicitly and repeatedly denied. This is also expressed in The Sutra of the Arrival in Lanka: Having thoroughly meditated on all phenomena being free from mind, mental cognition, consciousness, the five dharmas, and the [three] natures, Mahamati, a bodhisattva mahasattva is skilled in phenomenal identitylessness.

 

Most modern scholars who do not base their writings and research on Gelugpa presentations alone also agree that the essential purport of the system of Maitreya, Asanga, and Vasubandhu is not at all idealistic and that there is no claim of a really existing mind or other such entities. In fact, in much the same way as the Centrists, Yogacaras like Asanga and Vasubandhu introduce and employ expedient concepts, such as “mere mind,” only for the sake of dissolving previous ones. Once these concepts on different levels have fulfilled their purpose of redressing specific misconceptions, they are replaced by more subtle ones, which are similarly removed later in the gradual process of letting go of all reference points. The outcome of the above presentation is that the refutations in the Centrist texts of Mere Mentalism in general and of a really existing self-awareness or ground consciousness and so on in particular cannot be directed against the system of these masters. I have gone to some length here to provide evidence for this for two main reasons. First, it is quite an important point that Centrism and the lineage of vast activity are not mutually exclusive. Second is the need to redress the common but mistaken conflation of the lineage of vast activity with what Tibetans call Mere Mentalism, which invariably leads to its rejection.

 

 

One footnote: 

 

Quote

In general, most Western scholars have finally come to agree that it is completely wrong and misleading to refer to the Yogacara school as “idealist” in the sense that this term has in Western philosophy (for more details, see, for example, Harris 1991, Keenan 1989 and 1997, and Willis). In fact, this is a particularly obvious example of mistakenly trying to match specific terms of Western philosophy with Indian systems of thought. When I use “idealist” here, it is only in the sense in which Tillemans uses it: “2. If we wish to satisfactorily answer the question as to whether Yogacaras, like Dharmapala, were idealists, we must change our usual understanding of that term. A Buddhist idealist does not just accept mind-dependence or a reduction of existence to mind, but also that mind has a preferred ontological status and is more real than external objects. 3. While Dharmapala’s acceptance of the reality of mind qua paratantra does seem to make him an idealist in our revised sense, the structure of his system guarantees that any attempt to conceptualize or formulate what that mind is like or how it exists is impossible.” (1990, p. 68)

 

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: 

 

Quote

Paramărtha understood amalavijñăna to be the counteragent to ălayavijñăna, and the two to be in a temporal relationship to one another, whereby ălayavijñăna existed only until liberation, and was then succeeded by fully realised amalavijñăna. 

 

But later authors just made up their own ideas: 

 

Quote

However, the fact remains that later authors only received a very vague and pared  down version of Paramărtha’s doctrine. Subsequent authors then often took the concept as raw material for their own constructive projects, or, in the interests of attacking or defending the notion, wove it into complex new networks of proof texts and various concepts. The result, as we have seen, is that the bulk of what was said about amalavijñăna by later authors was new. We have little grounds for confidence that these authors were well acquainted with any works by Paramărtha, upon which they based their comments.

 

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. 

 

On 7/19/2024 at 5:15 PM, Maddie said:

 

What confuses me is that I hear it used in a Buddhist context often yet I have never read a Sutta where the Buddha mentioned it. 

 

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. 

13 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

your own person, with your individual life experiences, your memories etc. like all user files we have on the hard drive.

 

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

 

 

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

i would love to know what you mean

 

I'm not sure that is true. 

 

27 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

not what @forestofemptiness or the book neidaneers have in mind

 

Enjoy tilting at those windmills. 

 

I do think you have a lot to share, not sure about the delivery. 

 

14 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

uuh, we can go either way and still get to the same place? thats nice lol

 

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: 

 

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

this is a big red flag debunking their expertise because there is no ming without hsing.

 

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. 

 

14 minutes ago, old3bob said:

um, if something can be obtained then it can also be lost...btw who is this one that sees.....

 

As noted: 

 

16 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

Most other ways to describe it are an invitation to create various idols. 

 

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. 

10 hours ago, Sahaja said:

The way I have learned this is to not use the muscles on the outside in reverse breathing (similar to Trunk’s original posting, I think).

 

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). 

 

 

20 hours ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

 Its like translating Shakespeare to Chinese and expecting the latter to understand the full artistic scope of the source. 

 

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. 

 

20 hours ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

not necessarily any particular practice

 

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. 

 

 

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: 

 

Quote

If one’s practice only affects ming while leaving hsing untouched, one will experience all manner of sensations and reactions in the body, but one will not find one’s “protagonist,” and as a result the real goal of cultivation will remain elusive. People whose practice does not address hsing pour time into their bodies, and in return they create reactions in their qi meridians as well as certain physical changes. But because they do a poor job cultivating their minds’ natures, their thought patterns follow their base desires instead of becoming more refined. Because they have not developed their hsing, a great many qigong “masters” end up boasting of having supernormal abilities (which they may well have), advertising themselves, and seeking to profit from their abilities. Once they establish themselves in their roles as “masters,” many of these practitioners end up exploiting others for influence, money, and sex. This is how they ultimately end up as cult leaders. 

 

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): 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

https://www.amazon.com/Meditation-Health-Thomas-Cleary-ebook/dp/B005P8E6BG

 

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." 

 

5 hours ago, Antares said:

Where do you think the Theosophical movement, for example, originated from? Or "spirituality" in general, and New Age specifically, including things like qigong, modern yoga, and 'teachers' like Sadhguru, Osho, and Sai Baba? Did they all just arise randomly?

 

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?