C T

Point noted, but in order to know the depth of any practice its best to study the roots and not merely observe the insects that burrow into the bark or the lichens that form on it. Just because the people you had observed in western Zendos did not live up to your expectations is not exactly is good yardstick to measure the tradition by.

Speaking from across the water from Britain (meaning Ireland) all i can see is a country, from the perspective of the economy, despite being in the EU, going from terrible to horrible. Not that Ireland has much to contribute to Europe anyway except as a haven for unwanted refugees who are either shooed from other entry points or invited here by their buddies who are already here and living the good life due to shoddy human rights regulations (lack of it actually). I can see scroungers everywhere rubbing their hands in anticipation for the UK to pick 'remain' so when Ireland is sucked dry they wont have far to travel to continue their atrocious lifestyle.

Posted this vid in the off-topic section but there's more traffic here. Good documentary.

You do know right that if you enter into retreat, be it Zen or any other tradition, the stuff we struggle with gets amplified even more? Just a thought that came up. Some (quite a number actually) people who go into retreat do so with mistaken notions and motives. It can be an alluring thought, but actually it can be very demanding, and requires dedication, affinity and a strong bond with a good, authentic teacher. Anyway, its a noble ambition. Wish you the very best with it.

Its quite obvious Europe is under a big dark cloud.

The Mystery of Chi - Full documentary

If it was me, i would either volunteer with the local Green party, move to an eco village somewhere, find work in a communal organic farm, or cut off all ties and move to Bali . These would be my options.

smoke less you'll have money then

Makes sense if one considers the rate at which relationships deteriorate in current times. Entering relationships infatuated with assumed notions is usually not very productive.

Like God you mean? Sure has a similar ring to it

As mentioned above, if you are contented with not following or having to pledge your allegiance to any particular path, then by all means let that be your guiding force so long as it does not cause you any of the 3 Ds - doubts, discomfort and dissatisfaction. But the fact that you are here eliciting advice seems to indicate that you are not doubt-free all the time. What will you do now - do you stick with your own experiments, or take refuge in a proven path that offers clear-cut and systematic methods that will save you time and energy in getting to where you think is a (metaphorically speaking) satisfactory destination?

Or simply offer the questioner a heart smile without having to say anything You dont owe anyone any explanation nor do you need to justify your actions to anyone for as long as you are contented with your own thoughts and actions.

By all means do what you are most comfortable with, coupled with satisfactory results. That is the primary criteria and encouragement of correct practice, isn't it?

For me it was 2 books actually. The first, given to me by a friend - The Awakening of Intelligence, by J. Krishnamurti. The second one - The Meaning of Happiness, by Alan Watts.

If you are going to persist with the argument that it does not matter if change is inherent, then your level of objectivity and die-hard notions of concrete reality would be called into question. What I see is simply the seen, which is neither real nor an illusion. Its like seeing a mirage, or a making up stories as i read a novel. What determining factor do you use to say that what you see is in fact 'real'?

CT assumes the union or marriage as its put is indeed one that transpires internally (as in the 'inner marriage' in Michael's post above) - hence the question arises: wouldn't a physical partner be redundant then? In tantra, or at least in certain strains of tantra, a physical partner is (at times) more a hindrance than a boon. In my limited view, unless both partners share similar sensitivities and at least some telepathic connection somewhere along the early stages of the relationship, it would be more nurturing to cultivate without one. edited to add 'at times'

Even the term 'concrete reality' is far from accurate as a definitive term because of the inherent quality and/or potential of flux in all phenomenon. It would be easier to proof that things, both form and formless, are always changing and ex-changing than to proof their fixated values which determine the length of time they remain unchanging.

. my apologies for writing nonsense earlier . It was the mid-line that seems short of a syllable.

But if its not really empty as you say, it cannot rightly be called space because one of the chief attributes of space is its empty-like nature. Im not implying its wrong to make that assumption based on your reasoning though, just to be clear. However, once it becomes known what it is not empty of, wouldn't it then require a new definition or at the very least the inclusion of some sort of caveat?

Depends what art really. It defies logic to say abstract art can be viewed concretely. And just because some art and some music does not tickle your spiritual bones does not indicate their lack of goodness, does it?

'They' as in the sense doors? None of the senses can be used as a dependable instrument, or collectively as instruments, of gauging what reality is. If they were, it'd be the end of delusion, confusion and neurosis.

Precisely. Space is indefinable & unquantifiable and therefore can never be expressed within the limitations of the sense doors. This does not mean it cannot be felt though. Here again there is the potential for error since the urge to put names to feelings is often over-poweringly strong.

Perceptions via the sense doors will never provide any accurate understanding of space. Trying to define it thus is a futile exercise. At best one might get to accumulate new layers of information which likelier than not will be mere superimpositions on redundant data that swishes around 'in there somewhere' in an assumed mind which has no form, no location and empty of anything save that which it forms ideas and stories about.

The path of Tantra is said to be appropriate for people of strong passions, and it teaches us to experience every kind of emotion fully and completely. Emotions are forms of energy, and we need this energy for our spiritual life, for greater consciousness. Detachment should not be a dilution of energy, but a means of redirecting it to its proper use. If we try to ignore or suppress an emotion, or to make ourselves indifferent, we are actually deadening a part of ourselves and depriving ourselves of a source of energy. But what we often think of as intense emotion is usually really extreme entanglement in emo­tion. We say we ‘lose control’, we ‘can’t help getting angry’, ‘fall helplessly in love’, and so on. But if a flash of awareness comes, we feel a sudden release from that entanglement, and the emotion takes on an ab­stract quality of pure, neutral energy. Whatever the original impulse may have been, this experience brings a tremendous sense of joy and freedom; it is like dancing in empty space. Tantra says that the starting-point, the path and the goal are one. So any practice (the path) can never be separated from the goal of increased consciousness and bliss. This motivation is all-important, especially in connection with nonattachment. There must never be a negative rejection, but a positive making-way for something greater. We are taught to experiment with sensations and reactions, but it must always be done with joy and awareness. If we give up something we like or do something we dislike, it is in order to understand the subjective, relative nature of attachment and revulsion, and to experience their true essence, the ‘one taste’ of spiritual bliss. And whatever pleasures we enjoy, we should try to realise that they are not for the benefit of the lower self, but are offerings to the divine buddha-nature, which is both the enjoyer and the object of enjoyment. ~ Francesca Fremantle ~ {Excerpt from: Tantric View of Nonattachment}

the more spiritual you become, the less you want to talk about it. your level of spiritual mastery is always reflected in your ability to be present. Being present is meaningless if all you have to share is your own spirituality. Being present, in every sense of the term, becomes meaningful only when you are able to see the spiritual in other's ordinariness. Then you have nowhere to hide. People, lots of them, will want to be in your presence for no other reason than to bask in that glow of acceptance.