Sunya

Probably this is true, I agree with you that both true self and no self teachings are methods to cut through selfishness, but the former (true self) seems to have better success at affirming fixation [insert example of a crazy Hindu Guru scandal here]. Even if balanced, true self teachings still affirm fixation in some way. Instead of a small 'i' its a Grand 'I'. The little ego surrenders to the big ego and affirms its own existence through the ultimation of the Ultimate Subject. There is a subtle clinging/grasping happening there. It's hard to see, but its clearly evident to me. True self posits a ground into which you can surrender but still be safe. No self takes that ground away and thus is harder to comprehend since its so counter-intuitive. The mind wants a ground, but this ground is still a subtle concept and isn't real. This person doesn't get no self. If they did, there would no longer be suffering because such a realization offers complete freedom, spaciousness, and peace. 'I don't exist' are just thoughts. Depressed feelings are just feelings. The arhat who realized no self sees such thoughts and feelings as arbitrary clouds floating in the spaciousness of the sky and no longer attaches to them, seeing their true nature as empty.

Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the greatest contemporary Zen masters, is misunderstanding completely! Thanks for clearing that up Tzujanli. You should get in contact with him and tell him how wrong he is. I'm sure he'll thank you for clearing up the cause of suffering since that is, for Buddhists, an extremely difficult notion to comprehend. We are all very lucky that you're able to understand Buddhism so well to point out how wrong it is. On a serious note, I'm amazed that after all this time in multiple persons trying to explain to you the Buddhist notion of suffering, you're still painting a completely ignorant picture of it. Buddhists view reality as nondual, so of course we ARE reality, but then they get rid of the 'we' because identity implies separation, or union, but since there was never a separation there is no union but only reality. Only this. And of course we all experience reality, but Buddhists point out that we experience reality through a filter. If you are afraid of water, petrified, and someone throws you into the ocean. Will you be truly experiencing reality without concepts? Or will your fear be totally masking things as they are? Mind creates reality. This is the point that Thich Nhat Hanh is making. The self is an idea, a lens, from which we view reality. It is a concept and our experience is conceptual, thus it is tainted because such a lens is foggy/dirty. True reality is completely beyond concepts so yes, we are not experiencing reality as it is but rather are stuck in concepts.

There is much more to consciousness than what is perceived consciously as blockages, energy channels, and other phenomena. "Maybe the thoughts and negative beliefs one keeps having and storing into the mind that manifest themselves as blocks in the meridians? " Yes the mind is the root of all blockages but it runs deeper than what you are conscious of. You have years and years and years of shit to deal with. Might as well learn to meditate and cut to the source of these tensions if you really want quick results. Insight meditation coupled with Qi Gong is for the win.

Mclaughlin rocks!

There is refinement of realization, sure. It's not a one shot deal. But I'm not even talking about refinement of non-dual realization, i'm talking about the refinement of spiritual traditions in understanding reality. Shamans didn't get to nondual because their world-view is extremely dualistic so I don't see how their tradition can be the "great spiritual tradition that Buddhism and Vedanta are fragments of" when all evidence is to the contrary. As a foundation, yes I agree with you. The Greeks built a foundation by employing many methods of analysis that we still use today... but if someone were to say that modern science is only a fragmentary version of the greater scientific tradition of the Greeks, we cannot agree to this. Indeed but the view of nonduality is deeply imbedded into Vajrayana, which has clear understanding of the empty non-dual nature of the physical, subtle energetic, as well as formless realms. I think it makes sense that early explorers only had experience of the subtle realms hence their concern with out of body phenomena, taking plant aids, and healing others. The goal of Tibetan Buddhists is not just to commune with spirits and have subtle energetic journeys, I'm sure you already know this.

"Root of all spirituality" in what sense? That's a very bold and assumptive statement to make. Vedanta and Buddhism as fragments of a greater spiritual system? This reminds me of people who think there used to be a golden age like Atlantis that was perfect and now we are living in a fragmentary age. It's similar to the garden of eden myth and is embedded in people psychologically through conditioning to always look backwards instead of forwards. As if the past was so superior contrary to all historical and sociological evidence. There's no evidence that there was a "greater spiritual system". Shamanism is polytheistic and is concerned with the subtle realms. Religions arose from shamanistic roots but this arising can be viewed as evolution, not de-evolution, because the changes are more refined and less fantastical. For example both Buddhism and Vedanta are nondual traditions and don't view any beings as inherently existing. Shamanism on the other hand viewed spirits as inherently existing and controlling the weather and other natural forces. Furthermore, there was usually some grand Creator belief though different from monotheism because spirits were distinct from each other. Spirits were reified archetypes that represent natural forces. Is that what the universe is really about? I don't see Shamanism as the root of all spirituality in the world, at all. The nondual traditions are much more refined and have much deeper realization; I could hardly even connect Shamanism to Buddhism or Vedanta. That's like saying medieval science is the root of quantum physics; well um, yea the former preceded the latter but can it be called the root? Hardly.

hajimesaito, very insightful post. welcome to the TB boards

umm,, what? Sankara was around 8th century AD, Buddha was around 6th century BC. That's an 800 year gap. There is no way that Vedanta predates the Buddha. What's this obsession with having Hinduism be the source of everything? Indians love to do that; Jesus was a Hindu, Buddha was a Hindu.. maybe Laozi was a Hindu too! Very ethnocentric tendencies in that culture. Fact is, Buddha came along and denied much of what was being taught at the time; he learned from Hindu teachers but wasn't satisfied with anything they taught him. Furthermore 'anatta' and dependent origination are the key teachings which can definitely be attributed to the Buddha himself and are the key reasons of why Buddhism departs from Hindu eternalist view. To say that Buddhists don't understand 'anatta' is just further clarifying that viewing Buddhism from a Hindu lens is impossible. It is not an eternalist teaching. You must've been drunk when you wrote this. The Buddha taught anatta for the seeker to dis-identify with that which he is not. Big difference. Identification leads to grasping, grasping leads to suffering.

Not necessarily. There are Vedas that predate Buddhism but these Vedas are polytheistic and nowhere resemble Vedanta. Vedanta literally means 'end of the Vedas'; it refers to the Upanishads, (the first Hindu nondual teachings) the earliest of which might have been around during the Buddhas time, but there is no evidence of this though because the Buddha never argued against these teachings. When the Buddha argued against current religious beliefs he always viewed Brahma as the creator God and never even mentioned a belief in monism (the Brahman), but he did argue against the existence of a soul. There is far more evidence of Buddhism influencing Vedanta than vice versa. If you study Nagarjuna and then check out Sankara, you'll see much parallel. It's known that Sankara's Guru (Gaudapada) studed Mahayana. Anyway, none of this really matters. Buddhists view Hindus as eternalists and Hindus view Buddhists as nihilists. Completely different paradigm. This is commonly the teaching that is memorized by people who want to see Buddhism in a Hindu light. It's the only teaching that does so. If you want to study Buddhism, how can you take just teaching and rip it apart from the rest? That's like taking a piano and taking out one key and trying to play it. You're missing the rest and you're not going to understand what Buddha means just through that passage since you have no understanding of the context. He's talking about the true existence of things as a nature, not a self-existing underlying substratum. Anyway wasn't there a thread about this very topic?

My family is Jewish and I have relatives that were in the Holocaust. I also lived in Nanjing so I know quite well about the massacre that took place there; that doesn't change anything. There is no such thing as an independent self/soul/being, but suffering still occurs. Do qualities of experience require an essence or substance of some sort? Do actions require a doer separate from those actions, separate from the environment, which can then be blamed for a negative action (or pitied if on the receiving end)? I agree, but he doesn't care. He's like this annoying kid in one of my classes; he just randomly starts arguments with people about the most minuscule things and its obvious he doesn't truly care about the topic or the class, just the negative feelings that come with that sort of engagement. Everyone usually ignores him or entertains him once in a while for fun. Sorry Ralis, I don't enjoy being mean to you but you sure come off that way. I've wondered for a while now why you're such an argumentative person but we are as we are.

How can you say 'my brain' ? or 'my leg' ? or 'my thoughts' and actually believe those statements outside of their obvious error in language? This is directed toward Marble but everyone can join in. I'm curious in the rationale. I know we casually say these things, we use the possessive, but is it possible for you to fly out of your body and say MY BRAIN THERE IT IS! Is it? Well maybe if you do that out of body stuff, but my point is whatever you're aware of is not you, because you are who is aware. If you keep going back and back and back, you'll see that even the sense of 'I AM' can be taken as an object in awareness, which means that even the I is 'Not-I', when you get to that point, the whole idea of I completely vanishes.. well no it doesn't, but believing in it does. The brain still functions and things still happen, but there is realization that there has never been a doer to begin with. Ah but Marble here's the crux of the matter.. individuals are not separate from nature. Human history is just as much nature's doing as a tree growing or a star exploding. Does a star choose to explode? Did Hitler choose to do anything? No. Like a diseased tree that grows rotten apples, Hitler grew up into a psychotic being. 'He' didn't 'do' anything because there never was an agent named Hitler. That is a name we have for a collection of body parts. We attribute actions to his name but those actions arose because of interaction and conditioning. The belief in free will assumes that there is a causeless causing agent. You claim that you are your body parts, you are your thoughts, how can that be? Where are you? If you are simply a collection of parts then you are just an idea, much like a chair is a collection of wood but there is no chair outside of those parts. If you are more than your parts then please give me insight into the nature of this self? From your man Nietzsche himself For, in just the same way as people separate lightning from its flash and take the latter as an action, as the effect of a subject which is called lightning, so popular morality separates strength from the manifestations of strength, as if behind the strong person there were an indifferent substrate, which is free to express strength or not. But there is no such substrate; there is no "being" behind the doing, acting, becoming. "The doer" is merely made up and added into the action – the act is everything. People basically duplicate the action: when they see a lightning flash, that is an action of an action: they set up the same event first as the cause and then yet again as its effect. (...) "We weak people are merely weak. It's good if we do nothing; we are not strong enough for that" – but this bitter state, this shrewdness of the lowest ranks, which even insects possess (when in great danger they stand as if they were dead in order not to do "too much"), has, thanks to that counterfeiting and self-deception of powerlessness, dressed itself in the splendour of a self-denying, still, patient virtue, just as if the weakness of the weak man himself – that means his essence, his actions, his entire single, inevitable, and irredeemable reality – is a voluntary achievement, something willed, chosen, an act, something of merit. And another There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is _I_ who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."--In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual, and certain"--will encounter a smile and two notes of interrogation in a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken, but why should it be the truth?"

Perhaps you should work on your communicating skills more thoroughly since what you said makes no sense As I said earlier, philosophy is not a trick of the mind to be active, its a necessity. You're using the knife which you claim is useless, but since you don't sharpen it.. it is rusty and doesn't cut very well.

I'm not confused at all though. Philosophy is a method for me. Using the right language, having the right thoughts, are important because language is the only way for this mindstream to communicate with other mindstreams. I'm trying to point something out to Marble and so I must use language. If I didn't carefully and meticulously analyze thoughts and language, then I would just say something stupid and my point would be missed. It is necessary to understand what you are dropping and why, before dropping occurs. Or else there will be too much resistance and reluctance, that's unfortunately how it works "That's a widely held 'belief', but.. i'll wager that you have a 'particular' philosophy that you believe is superior to others, right? I'll further wager this 'philosophy' prejudices the 'clarity' you wish you could claim, am i 'close'?" I think the most superior philosophy is the most accurate to describe and point out the way things truly are.

Thanks for the response! I've been cooking them too long I guess. btw are you referring specifically to cooking Dangshen, Baizhu, and Huangqi? I've been cooking them for 1 hour, low simmer, strain and then cook for 30 minutes. This is too long you say? What happens if I cook for too long? I haven't burned them or anything.. and the tea tastes fine. And could you give some advice about how much to use of each? I have no way of measuring in grams. I've just been using a handful of each.

in the page where you post, theres a link 'Insert Media' which is a picture of some rectangles, to the right of <>

I think it's you that has the overactive imagination lol. Consciousness incarnate? I created this reality? Ok i'll just wish that the sun goes down!... Wishing... wishing really hard! Nope it's still staying there! Damn. I agree with this, but integrating mind with that realization is also a necessity. The mind cannot be ignored so non-dual philosophy must be studied alongside with meditation. But prior to stilling the mind you need concepts, there is a requirement in studying philosophy. If you don't know what 'still the mind means', how can you do it? If you don't know why, why would you do it? If you don't first intellectualize about your situation and desire truth or change or peace, or whatever goal, then there won't be any stilling the mind. Philosophy is a method that can be used properly and is a necessity especially in the beginning. It's not just a trick designed to keep the mind active.. But I agree that by itself, it'll get no where and will lead you to endless intellectualizing that'll lead to confusion. Perhaps thats what you were pointing to.

you're describing the experience of the very subtle thoughtform 'I AM', thoughts don't have to be verbal. Was there awareness of this feeling of 'I'? Then that feeling is not I since you were aware of it. who's energies? You are nothing but a thoughtform, everything you describe happens spontaneously without any doer. Philosophy isn't about being comfortable, it's about figuring out the way things truly are. Doership is an illusion and always has been, but things get done. Look at the last century alone.. so much has been done! So many innovations, so many wars, so many happenings! And yet.. no doers, just spontaneous intermingled happenings. Passive is a quality you give to the thoughtform of selflessness since you've never experienced it; you assume it's a certain way because the ego needs to feel that its a necessity. The mind loves to fantasize and see the alternative as a negative extreme. This is how we stay the same; this is why we don't change perception and see things as they are. Right, the illusion of control is a major facet of the ego. It needs to feel that its in control when it's only a thought-form. Can you control the heart beat? Can you move blood through veins and heal wounds? No, all of that happens spontaneously while the ego pretends that 'it's body' did something, implying a possessive nature. Did you choose to be born? Will you choose to die? What can you really do? well...you can think, make decisions, act. right? but where do your choices come from? Where do the decisions come from? It's all under the hood, everything happens behind the scenes. You will get an idea and then make a choice, that is your perception of your experience, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. Getting an idea means the idea arose spontaneously out of nowhere. You don't create an idea; it comes to you. What do you actually create? 'Choice' is an illusion. An idea arises spontaneously, or an impulse, and decision-making is a process of abstractly thinking through a set filter, gained through experience, about the positives and negatives of a given choice, like a cost-benefit analysis. Thoughts carry a subconscious non-verbal assumption that there is a thinker, that there is a doer, someone in control. You will probably think that 'will' or 'intention' is the I, but that too is a non-verbal thought form containing the underlying assumption of 'I'. If you become mindful and observant of will, you'll see that it too is automatic. Wu-wei happens all the time, always, you don't make a choice of it. Choosing to act spontaneously is just the mind becoming aware of how things always are through acceptance and giving up the mental construct of "control". Self as a non-verbal assumptive mental construct lies quite deep within consciousness. It's like the drone in Hindu music which is always there but hard to pinpoint unless you focus on it, because it's a constant. But, when analyzed, eventually it can be seen as an object in awareness just like sensory perceptions and thoughts are. If there is awareness of 'I', then 'I' is not you. Since there can be awareness of everything, including the 'I', whatever is awared is not you. Thus there is nothing to cling to because there is no 'you' that can be found. There is only awareness as the infintely diverse manifestations experienced.

ralis is classic #3 and #4. "Everyone's wrong! I'm right! I use exclamation points to appear confident! I'll use laughing smilies to appear even more confident! I pretend that I don't care about anyone on this forum and I'm only here to bestow my lofty opinion, but I keep coming back because disagreements fuel my emotions which I like very much!!!!" Yep.. classic vampire. Anyone got some garlic?

Marble, what is the experience of 'I' beyond thoughts and feelings? By thoughts we have language, the ongoing conversation in the head, as well as non-language thoughts such as 'intention' and symbolic gestures experienced in the dream state. There are various types of thoughts. Feelings are always felt in the body and usually correlate to thoughts. Are you saying that the 'I' exists beyond thoughts and feelings? How could you possibly say that when all you have are thoughts and feelings in your experience? Is the 'I' not just a thought/feeling? Thank you

Indeed. There is change, nobody can deny that.. but the continuation of something into something is conceptual, for example: an apple drops from a tree, lays on the ground, and rots. The mind will count moments and say that apple has been there for 2 days and now its rotting! But the truth is, there is only rotting. The 'apple' is just an experience of a collection of visual and tactile phenomena coupled with thought-forms (the essence of which is an assumption that 'apple' is something inherently real). Was the apple born? Did the apple die? There is no inherent apple, so birth and death don't apply. Language conditions you to think in nouns but without any substance/essence to make 'apple' self-existing, how can there be a noun? There is simply the ever-changing experience of apple as a process. There is apple-ing! As for time, there isn't even agreement among Physicists though the majority view it as relative -- http://www.helium.com/debates/126796-is-time-real-or-relative Philosophically there's no way to prove that time exists because there's absolutely no way to get out of your subjective perspectival experience. All you have is your own experience and if you analyze it thoroughly you will see that the past is memory and future is thought (like alwayson mentioned). You may think that without time there wouldn't be change, but nobody is denying change. Time is measured by the earth revolving around the sun; if you lived on another planet in another star system -- days would be much longer and so would hours/minutes, etc. So measurements are relative. As for "time" itself, what's your definition of time? I found this one the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past I think anyone can see the problem with such definition. It reifies 'future' and 'past', it makes the ideas to be real when they are only ideas. Like I said, the 'continuum of experience' cannot be denied by anyone but the 'future' and 'present' can. If you take away both of these constructs, what do you have left? The ongoing ever-changing moment.

Screw you all!! :wacko: :wacko:

Max learned Yi Gong from Sifu Jenny and Red Phoenix elsewhere; they only became part of one system when he combined them to form Kunlun. You're misinformed. Sifu Jenny is who Max learned Kunlun from and even she doesn't know much about the practice history aside from it being Maoshan. Max loves to tell stories.

Quite interesting! Thanks.

so i'm going to try out some Tibetan Herbal formulas, they are pretty hard to find unless you have access to a doctor. the 2 most popularly prescribed formulations are available over the net. I found a good souce at http://www.siddhienergetics.com and am going to give them a try. Agar 35 and Semde there is an article about the two herbs on Bluepoppy written by Bob Flaws, whoever is interested in a TCM point of view on the herbs. http://www.bluepoppy.com/cfwebstorefb/inde.../1428/index.cfm http://www.bluepoppy.com/cfwebstorefb/inde...feature_id=1430 from what I can gather... both are prescribed for rLung disorders, rLung is wind and is equivelant to the Sanskrit: Prana and Chinese: Qi Semde is for rlung disorders of the central channel, or 'chong mai' while Agar 35 is for rlung disorders stemming from disharmony of organs which results in malnourishment of the 'heart spirit' (in TCM terms) taken together: they are complimentary and the spirit is uplifted, channels are helped to clear, and body is brought into balance. i'm going to start a daily regimen and whoever is interested I can report back with the results I have. i'm healing myself of energy disorders stemming from bad diet and pot smoking.

I think they are meant to be used during retreat and with specific practices relating to fire, like tummo. So maybe try that