forestofclarity

Concierge
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,104

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Posts posted by forestofclarity

  2. Posted

    1 hour ago, Daniel said:

     

    The forum rules prohibit it.  A moderator has already posted a reminder in the thread.

     

    FWIW, I think there is a difference between specifically debating politics and Maddie reporting on her experiences/fears and answering questions (thus the leeway). However, in this case, the posts that were moved were related to immigration, health policy, etc. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  5. Posted

    I wonder how one might phenomenologically distinguish between an expanded Buddha, nirguna Brahman, and panentheist God. 

     

    23 hours ago, stirling said:

    Her version of it has the "dharma protectors" doing it. While I have empowerments, I think it is true for anyone on this path, protectors or not.

     

    I think there is something to that. There is a lot of similarity between how things unfolded with mystic Christianity and Buddhism IME-- Christianity even has protectors (i.e. wrathful angels) that appear to look after the teaching. There some different flavors. I mean, experience-reality-cosmos is what it is. But it seems like thought he bottles different, the essence is the same. 

     

    I've had pointing outs in Buddhism and Vedanta that were nearly identical, FWIW (!). 

     

    5 hours ago, old3bob said:

    experiences in territory are also different, thus its not kosher to lump everything into a wana-be transcendental melting pot 

     

    I think this is right, but also not right. I mean, the Traditionalists tend to prune away differences to create a mushy Perennialist model. But on the other hand, there isn't a Jewish mountain, a Vedantic mountain, and a Buddhist mountain. 

  10. Posted

    2 hours ago, stirling said:

    Haven't really tried anything else honestly... most of the rest (manipulating for money/love/etc.) isn't of interest to me. 

     

    I've sort of changed my mind on the issue. I realized that the most important material thing isn't money, etc. but actually health. And not just for oneself, but as an offering for others. When you hear about some obstacle or issue some one is having, there's something that can be done. Or maybe we just release it out into the world as an offering. 

     

    But even money for oneself--- if you use it for dharmic ends--- buying dharmic things made by people who now earn merit, or giving to teachers, or support monastics, or the poor, or supporting dharma activities--- then this is also a good thing. Plus the gains of the people who manufacture the metals, or deliver it, etc, it ripples out. Not to mention the inward ripples or the impact on those around me who may not be spiritual practitioners. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  11. Posted

    The true “I” — the consciousness that looks out at the world through you, as through a window — has many names: in Christianity it is the Son, the Logos, the kingdom of heaven; Jung called it the Self; the Dzogchen teachings speak of rigpa; other Buddhists sometimes call it “mind”; for the Hindus it is Atman. This Self — which is emphatically not the lower self or the ego — is at the core of your being. You can never see it, because it is that which sees. Saint Francis of Assisi alluded to this when he said, “What you are looking for is what is looking.” And Christ in the Gospel of Thomas says, “You can never take hold of it, but you can never lose it.”

     

    Paradoxically, this “I,” this most intimate and private part of ourselves, is held in common by all; it is the same in everyone. A Course in Miracles says, “God has only one Son,” and we collectively are the Son. Language itself begins to bend and break under this realization. How does our tidy system of grammar do justice to the fact that what is most deeply, intimately “me” is precisely what I most share with everyone else?

     

    The Buddhists say it is just as accurate to speak of “no self” as of the Self. Buddhism also doesn’t subscribe to the notion of a theistic God. Esoteric Christianity would agree that God is not a person in the way you and I are persons. God is Absolute, beyond personhood or nonpersonhood. And yet, Christianity teaches, God is capable of relating to us as persons. That is part of the infinite mercy of the divine.

     

    --- Richard Smoley

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  12. Posted

    17 hours ago, Thrice Daily said:

    well ahead of his time wasn't he.

     

    Or behind, by several millenia, depending on how one looks. 

     

    16 hours ago, stirling said:

     

    I read that a few months ago. Some of it is, while more complicated, quite similar to the Buddhist models. I think of his description of Kia as (an inexpensive car... kidding!) a nice metaphor to explain how our intention can manifest in the world when we are more and more "empty" of "self". My experience is that this is certainly the case.

     

    I could never get straight chaos magic to work. One could say that the model wasn't conducive to convincing my deeper layers of mind. 

    • Like 2

  13. Posted

    Let's mix it up. I was surprised to come across this. Maybe not fully on point, but sympathetically so: 


     

    Quote

     

    Kia cannot be experienced directly because it is the basis of consciousness (or experience), and it has no fixed qualities which the mind can latch on to. Kia is the consciousness, it is the elusive “I” which confers self-awareness but does not seem to consist of anything itself. Kia can sometimes be felt as ecstacy or inspiration, but it is deeply buried in the dualistic mind. It is mostly trapped in the aimless wanderings of thought and in identification with experience and in that cluster of opinions about ourselves called ego. Magic is concerned with giving the Kia more freedom and flexibility and with providing means by which it can manifest its occult power. Kia is capable of occult power because it is a fragment of the great life force of the universe.


     

    --- Peter Carroll, Liber Null

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  15. Posted

    14 minutes ago, KJ90 said:

    I am new to these practices and studies, but I have always been very curious. I look forward to learning from the people here, and hopefully someday also contributing something in return when I have something worth contributing.

    Welcome!

  23. Posted

    As a follow on: 

     

    Quote

    When we hear ‘Don’t be distracted’, we may think that we have to do something in order to be undistracted. People usually think that trying to remain undistracted is some kind of deliberate act. This would in fact be so if the aim was to maintain a par­ticular state of concentration for a long time. Deliberate action would be necessary in that case. But I am not telling you to do that. The moment of natural empty cognisance doesn’t last very long by itself, but that’s perfectly okay. You don’t have to try to prolong that moment; rather, repeat it many times. ‘Short moments, many times’—this is the training in uncontrived natu­ralness. Uncontrived naturalness means you don’t have to do any­thing during that state. It’s like ringing a bell. Once you ring the bell there is a continuity of sound; you don’t have to do anything in order for the sound to continue. Simply allow that continuity to endure by itself until at some point the sound fades away.

     

    --- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    47 minutes ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

    I find I am able to do this until I'm not.

     

    Exactly so! As Tulku Urgyen says, "short times, many times." It is the practice until it unfolds at its own rate. 

     

    Meditation is Tibetan is gom, often translated as "to become familiar with." I like this emphasis it isn't really effortful. Once you become familiar with some one, we can recognize them instantly, even if they are dressed differently, with a different haircut, or even in disguise. Same here, IME. 

    • Like 3

  25. Posted

    22 hours ago, old3bob said:

    that would have to be put into context...being that mind per se ranges anywhere from A-Z.  (as depicted in the Wheel of Life in Tibetan Buddhism, whereas un-compounded pure Spirit points to that which can not be corrupted)

     

    In this case the reference is to the mind's essential nature (sems nyid) as opposed to the mind (sems) or its various expressions.Â