Maddie

This is very interesting as I have often wondered what karma someone makes that causes them to become an Asura, but to me this would seem to be one way to do so.

I don't know if this is really on topic but these stories caused me to remember one of my own road rage stories. One time I was driving down the road minding my own, and this guy pulls up next to me and decides that we wants to communicate with sign language. So I look over and he is giving me the bird and yelling something that I can't make out as both of our windows are up, and for what ever reason it just seemed like this was part of this cosmic joke and I couldn't help myself but started to get this huge grin on my face because the situation just seemed hilarious. I guess he was not expecting this, and suddenly he had the most unusual expression on his face and then just sort of drove off.

It like "resurrecting" old posts about Jesus I think one thing that can not be denied is that not matter what you think about Jesus, he has had a major impact on world history.

I've often wondered why the cultivation techniques from the East IMO seem to be more advanced and effective than what we have from the West? The cultivation techniques that have come out of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism seem to be more detailed, elaborate, and specific than anything that I know of from the West. Granted the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, European pagans, ect might have had advanced cultivation techniques that have been lost. The Orthodox and Catholic's seem to have some techniques that mainly the mystics practice such as the Jesus prayer, writings of St. John of the Cross, and things like that, but generally less than the East. The Muslims have the Sufis, and the Jew's have Kabbala. Then when you get into Protestantism there seems to be almost no real cultivation methods besides some merit making. I wonder why is this? Sure it can be said the Roman Emperors wanted to manipulate religion to consolidate power, but China and India had their fair share of power hungry leaders as well, so why didn't they replace cultivation methods with dogmas more suited to power as well? Maybe there are very effective methods from the West that I am unfamiliar with, but in the sixties when people in the West began to desire better cultivation methods they generally turned towards the East. So why do the methods from the East generally seem superior?

As far as what to actually do about it I've always found mindfulness to be one of the most effective techniques. Observe, explore. Where do you feel the fear? When you find where, what does the feeling actually feel like? Observe the feeling and separate it from what you consider to be "yourself" and think of it as just a feeling, as just a type of energy. Pay attention to "what is this, what is it?"

I have often pondered the same question, and this is so far the best I have come up with. The Buddha said that there are basically two driving forces within the mind, desire and aversion which is just anti-desire. Desire is to get the things we want. Aversion is to not have the things we don't want. Fear is a derivative of aversion. It is ultimately and basically someone we don't want, and it is usually the type of aversion that is averse to something bad happening to us. Anger on the other hand is the type of aversion usually of having a plan not go our way or feeling an attack on our perceived notion of our "self" Fear is the aversion to bad things happening to us. We perceive someone might hurt us or take what belongs to us and we "fear" this. We don't want the self to be hurt or suffer loss and this aversion to these events is what we call fear. One of the titles of the Buddha is called the "fearless" one, as he had overcome all notions and attachments to a false self.

I would say that those first two days of monkey mind were not as unproductive as you might think. Good meditation isn't sitting there and making your mind quiet. It's just sitting there and letting whatever happens happen even if it happens to be monkeys 🐵. Still it would be interesting to know what it was that you read.

Yes and yes. Also consider mudras.

Interesting. I wonder if that is where the veneration of the saints came from. If the pagans of Europe were forced to convert at the point of a sword so they moved their pantheons under cover as saints?

I find this theory interesting, but would you mind elaborating a little more about this? Why does it lead to mere intellect and atheism?

I wonder why there was a general shift from polytheism to monotheism

This brought back memories of a long time ago when I was in a cult church that emphasized obedience above all else. Obedience was seen as the highest virtue, especially unquestioning obedience. They put a lot of emphasis on the Old Testament which had a lot of passages that are very similar to this Sumerian poem. In the Old Testament it was all about obedience.

Alan Watts once said the Church took guilt and turned it into a virtue. *edit: I must add I don't say this happily as I wish there was some way to find virtue in the Church.

Yes and unfortunately if the West had any good cultivation techniques they were largely lost and I suppose this would explain the largely neurotic nature of society.

I still see this attitude when speaking to some evangelicals today. If it doesn't line up with what they think is proper they call it evil and satanic.

Something I've been thinking about recently is the more subtle forms of clinging and attachment. The more gross and obvious forms like clinging to the things of the senses seem pretty obvious, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, and thoughts, but what about the less obvious forms of clinging? This is the type of clinging that often gets overlooked because it is a spiritual method, practice, or tradition. This kind of clinging can take the form of clinging takes the form of clinging to a religion, or clinging to practice, or clinging to a spiritual concept. It is the idea of clinging to the raft after we have arrived on the other shore of the river. Has anyone else dealt with clinging to the practice itself, or some other type of spiritual tradition?

Yes. Most average people live out their karma as though its fixed because they don't know any better, but if you change your karma you change your destiny. This is why people do things like the Zhunti mantra. That pull in a certain direction is karma. The reason most people don't change their karma is because they react to it thus creating more similar karma so it can have the illusion of being perpetual. But like the Buddha said all things are impermanent.

Yes when I first became interested in Taoism I was in college in Alaska and realized this stuff was written in the context of ancient China and not Alaska so some modification is necessary.

Things are destined in as much as the nature of ones karma is.

Yes, they both came from the same proto-Indo-european root. https://youtu.be/RIfB1LI79OQ

Yes I think the reason an enlightened being does not create karma is because everything they do is completely mindful.

It's said that an Arahant or a Buddha does not create karma.

It is for the reason I am very hesitant with the word "love". I prefer kindness and compassion because the western notion of "love" involves a lot of attachment, craving, and clinging.

Indeed it is, and not just the things we want since there is a thing called bad karma as well.

Much of what is done is also the result of karma.