Maddie

That's a good question, I've been wondering the same thing. Would mantra practice be considered tantra?

I don't know much about oral transmissions or empowerments but I would be curious to hear what your experiences have been with this practice. :-)

So once again I begin doing a lot of this practice almost to the point of exclusively and I've also started visualizing the medicine Buddha more often when I do the mantra and I seem to experience more effect from this practice than anything I've done for a while lately.

I find the concept of dealing with emotions before beginning meditation work very interesting due to the fact that when I originally got into meditation it was to deal with emotions which proved to be very difficult.

Assuming one can reach jhana. Where does deity yoga fit into this?

Inner smile was one of the first practices I began doing. I learned the Chia version but would combine it with the healing sounds. So inner smile and the matching color/attributes breathing in, and healing sound breathing out. I was surprised because it began to release all sorts of stuck emotions in the organs which I was not expecting nor prepared for.

What I have run into with Western Theravada monks at least is that when I ask about tantra or other methods like that they are very dismissive and say "well the Buddha never said anything about that" and that is pretty much the end of the discussion. I've never really figured out what to make of this one way or the other.

I see what you're saying but it also seems from what you're saying that you've made progress. I think an important thing to keep in mind though is awakened people don't need Buddhism. Buddhism is for those who are still in delusion.

I think I am finding that mantra practice is working for me better personally than mindfulness meditation. In fact I think I am discovering that mindfulness meditation at least as I learned it would often make me feel much worse.

Until recently I have not done any visualizations, but recently I have begun to try and visualize the Bodhisattva or Buddha who's mantra I am doing some of the time. I'm not sure but I feel that it might add something.

Why do you think you've not been a very good buddhist?

My general understanding of Buddhism is that typically one focuses on cultivating the mind and it is assumed as a given that the energy will follow suite. What I want to know if I am understanding correctly (or not) is if the concept in Taoism in general is to cultivate the energy and then let it affect the mind?

I've noticed lately that reading various religious texts affects my qi in different ways. Just the act of reading it, regardless if I understand it or not. The qi starts moving. Has anyone else noticed anything like this?

This seems to be a lot more involved than what I learned in Dr. Yang's book. In his book you just focus on the Dan Tien and breathe. If I do this a while I usually feel tingling in the area. I didn't realize there was more involved. Developing the Dan Tien has a stabilizing effect on the emotions doesn't it?

So Buddhism has the concept of no-self, Hinduism has the concept of atman, Christianity has the notion of soul. What is the Taoist idea in regards to the "self" or the lack there of?

Thank you that's a really good answer. Do you know what this original true self is? or is considered?

I have noticed that celibacy conserves energy and as the energy increases it adds energy to everything, including our imbalances. If done without mindfulness this can be very problematic as a mild temper can become a large temper, or a mild obsession becomes a big one. One the other hand if one is practicing mindfulness then making things louder can actually be of great benefit as it brings things to the awareness to be mindful of. It becomes to observe how craving is indeed to cause of suffering.

I think just based on my own personal experience is that to a lot of Westerners they are taught that Buddhism or what ever other method they are learning is "meditation" and there is not a lot of study or theory. What I came to realize as the problem with this is that the Buddha didn't just say "go and meditate" (he had already mastered meditation before he became enlightened). The Buddha taught the "Dharma" which involves a lot of things that need to be studied and realized and not just meditation.

This makes me think of the divide in Theravada between the village/scholar monks and the forest/meditation monks. The village monks tend to look down on the forest monks for having a shallow understanding of the dharma, while the forest monks tend to look down on the village monks for having a weak meditation practice. I tend to think of it as both are important and its not an either/or issue.

So in Buddhism desire is seen as the cause of suffering and something to be let go of. Is this the case in Taoism as well? If not what is the attitude about desire in Taoism, and the view of "liberation" if there is such a view?

I took a blend called "allergy"

Science dismisses homeopathy as quackery but I used to have really bad allergies and sinus issues and it pretty much ended that problem for me.

When I first got into meditation and Buddhism (in that order) the common and constant notion I read, or heard was that ultimately the only way to Nirvana was via meditation. Not knowing much I just accepted this as a fact. As time went on and I began to read more of the suttas myself as well as having more time to have personal experience I began to read that there seemed to be more ways to awakening than only meditation, and even that meditation wasn't enough. I read suttas that seemed to indicate that there were multiple methods to enlightenment. Meditation of course was a way, but there also were listed mindfulness, study, loving kindness, devotion, and faith. I was confused when I read these after having been told and read that the only way was meditation. Has anyone else had this experience or have any thoughts on this topic?

At the risk of sounding a bit dense, what exactly is spirituality and what do we consider spiritual or not spiritual and why? Why is it that places like India and Tibet seem spiritual but some place like medieval Europe don't? Medieval Europe had monks, nuns, monasteries, hermits, and the spiritual dominated the thoughts of the common medieval person probably much more than the common person of today. So why do people not think of this time and place as inherently spiritual. Why do people tend to think of the Himalayas as being so spiritual? Why is the Zen monastery in the mountains thought of as being more spiritual than the church down the street? I'm not even saying that I disagree with these common notions, but I am wondering why we think what we think about what is and isn't spiritual.

I have been wondering if the sacraments have any actual energetic efficacy or if they are just a ritual?