Maddie

It depends on the current state of your lower Chakras, but you gave me the impression in your OP of wanting a direct answer, so I gave you one. I have no thoughts on this, as I'm only sharing what I know.

Let these feelings become the object of your mindfulness and not seen as a distraction from it.

For the Jhanas I recommend Ajahn Barham's book "Mindfulness, meditation and beyond" but to get started do as much breath meditation as you possibly can each day, as in several hours. Keep at least the five precepts, eight is better. For the third eye keep your point of concentration at your third eye while doing breath meditation. *edit- you mentioned that you have a lot of willpower. This will just be an obstruction to jhanna, as jhanna is achieved through letting go which is the opposite of the will.

All the information and much more to answer your question. In regards to the Buddhas bodhisattva vows, as well as the bodhisattva in Theravada. http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/b/bodhisatta.htm

Actually the Buddha did take a bodhisattva vow eons ago, this is how he eventually became the Buddha. This also illustrates the bodhisattva concept in Theravada, that a bodhisattva's end goal is to become a fully enlightened Buddha.

You're correct I did mix then up

I've done over 100,000 for sure, probably not 200,000 though. Interesting take on the vomiting out black substance thing though. My assumption is that the reason it gets uncomfortable is due to the working out of bad karma.

So before I get into my main point/ question I want to state that I do realize that the Samatha vs Vipassina debate in Buddhism and meditation circles in general is one of many and varied opinions. What I am interested in is hearing individual experiences with one or the other or both. I realize there are many teachers that advocate various approaches for various reasons and I also realize that there is no one size fits all approach. I'd personally say that the two main "teachers" I claim are Ajahan Braham and Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu of youtube fame. Ajahan Braham seems to advocate for more of a Samatha approach in order to reach the jhanna states after which insight is supposed to come as a result. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on the other hand does not teach this approach but rather Vipassina insight meditation by the means of noting or labeling what ever arises in the mind as a way of gaining insight. Lately I have been thinking that the Samatha approach is better for me as I feel pretty good from doing it, whereas after doing the Vipassina method I often tend to feel agitated. I'm sure other people may have had other experiences but I am speculating that having endured a lot of childhood trauma in my early years perhaps Vipassina isn't the best for me. Can anyone relate? Aside from that I would be interested in hearing other peoples experiences and thoughts on this topic.

This raises a question I have as coming from a mostly Theravada background. Is there much study of the Pali Canon in Mahayana? Theravadan's from what I've seen tend to reject Mahayana sutras outright. Most of my personal study has been of and from the Pali texts and though I enjoy reading them I'm not entirely convinced that all the Pali Canon is the original and accurate words of the Buddha.

That made me think of this lol

Have you ever listened to Brian Ruhe's talk about early Buddhism? It's very slanted towards Theravada and against Mahayana. It used to have more sway with me until Brian became a Nazi/Buddhist. I have to admit that may have affected his credibility in my view somewhat.

Good call, the times I did feel like he showed up it did have more to do with my mind.

Well for a couple reasons. First of all it just felt that way. Another is there were a couple situations where I feel like he did show up and it felt different. I realize this is not a good explanation but it's all I've got.

Care to elaborate?

Interesting point. This is something I don't talk about much but at one point I was a seminary student (it was at this time these events I wrote about above happened). Anyways there is a whole theological school of Christianity called "Reformed Christianity". It is based largely on the writings of John Calvin the 16th century French/Swiss theologian of the reformation period. Anyways one of the main points of Reformed theology is that of "election" which means that it is impossible for a human being to choose God, but rather the only way in which a person has any hope of divine grace is for God to elect them. They felt the notion of a human being able to choose to connect with the divine was impossible.

The only thing I can tell you is what I did at the time as this sort of thing is no longer something I do, but basically at the time I would pray a lot, but not just pray a wish list but pray contemplatively and try to listen. Looking back it had a lot of vipassana elements to it even though I didn't know what vipassina was (at least in this life) ;-)

Oh yea no worries I've not be a Christian for quite a while now. Even at the time I assumed it was the direct work of angles following orders and not necessarily Jesus himself lol.

Good question. This has not been much of an issue with me the last several years as my primary world view has been Buddhist in which deities are not much of a factor. Though many years ago I was actually a very dedicated evangelical Christian and that being the case the deity Jesus was a very big factor. There were times that I would spend hours in contemplative prayer, i.e. listening as opposed to just speaking. There were times that I would definitely feel a type of guidance and inspiration. Not only that but it was at this time that I averted several accidents that I can give no other explanation for other than miraculous, such as having an industrial rack of tonnes of lumber fall on top of me only for the only spot that had no lumber fall on it to be the exact spot I was standing on. Another time I was about to change lanes in my mini hatch back only for the steering wheel to not move at all no matter how hard I tried. A second later a massive big rig truck blasted past me at high speed. I would have been pulverized had I been hit. Another time I was working on a ladder three stories up and the ladder fell out from under me and I feel three stories. The funny thing is, that it felt like slow motion and as though I was being gently set down. Once I hit the ground I was totally fine, and everyone that came running over to me could not believe I was unhurt. These things all happened during my zealous evangelical Christian phase when communing with deities was my primary focus.

My girlfriend between the two of us is the more skeptical pragmatic one. Often I will be talking about something the Buddha said or taught and she will say "but how do you know that it is true" or "how do you know the Buddha was correct". About half the time I will respond by saying that what ever it was he said that we were talking about makes sense and seems logical, but the other half of the time I often have to admit that "I don't know". It makes sense that if there was confusion about these things even in the time the Buddha was alive that 2,500 years later it would be even more so.

Mainly the differences between Mahayana and Theravada. I found your premise that the division begin early interesting just wanting to know what the early differences of understanding what the differences of doctrine were.

I find this thread very interesting. One question that I do have though is when did doctrinal differences based on the sutras begin and what was the cause of this?

I've also noticed as coming from a Buddhist point of view, but recently learning more about Hinduism that there are a lot of similarities and not everything that I thought was an original Buddhist concept is actually originally Buddhist. Though I do think that in addition to dependent origination that non-self is also distinctly Buddhist.

To me Yaweh and Brahma are quite different in several ways. Brahma I believe is not really a personality but more of an impersonal force which to me sounds more like the Tao than Yaweh. Also being that Brahma isn't really a personality it would not get jealous or angry, but Yaweh does which would put him more on par with the lower tier gods of Hinduism like Indra and such, or Zeus or Thor of other pantheons.

I don't think he was implying that sex for monks was ok, rather I think he placed not killing and celibacy in the category of serious things, and making noise with your mouth while eating as minor stuff. I find this topic very interesting as it is something I have been pondering quite a bit as well. Aside from the Pali Vinaya another place it can be found where the Buddha said that the minor rules could be dropped was in the Pali Mahaparinabbana Sutta. The first time I read this sutta I was left wondering why so many of the minor rules that really don't seem to make much sense or be relevant were kept. I am not an Arahat and I feel pretty confident that rules that prohibit carrying salt or garlic are not really all that vital to the path of Nirvana. I also feel bad for Ananda that he received so much grief for wanting to include women into the Sanga. This would appear to make the Sanga of the Buddha's time appear a little more human than they came to be portrayed in latter Buddhist mythology. It brings to mind the excommunication of Ajahan Braham from his monastery in Thailand for fully ordaining nuns.

Has anyone else noticed that doing this mantra "too much" digs up a lot of suppressed stuff and can be a bit uncomfortable?