forestofsouls

I've seen transmutation go three ways. One group I've noticed comes to a spiritual teaching/practice, and approaches it the way they would any other hobby, interest, academic study, etc. They turn the Great Work into a thing of life. They may use spiritual gatherings as a time to socialize, gather concepts, sharpen their intellects, etc. Another group approaches a spiritual teaching/practice, and allow it to transform their life. They turn their lives into the Great Work. They may use their daily lives as a basis for spiritual work. A third group falls somewhere in the middle, often starting in the first group and working toward the second. There often comes a turning point where the question arises: which is more important? The Great Work or life? I'm glad the prick got your attention.

Xabir, It's not necessarily a good thing to have all the answers, or to give them. Ossification can be a sign of involution. Good luck.

No, I am not practicing witnessing. Where is the witness to rest? What I am working with right now is self-inquiry. I think this is often misunderstood, because people tend to talk about an awareness apart from everything else or awareness just resting on awareness. However, in the Path of Sri Ramana Part One, Sri Sadhu Om writes about Ramana and his teachings of self-inquiry while doing other things. Indeed, many Chan masters had their moment of awakening while doing things other than meditating. How does this inform practice? In the Shurangama Sutra, it talks of the host and the guests. The host stays. The guests come and go. If so, then this host must be present all through your life, since you were a child, in times of delusion and mental calmness. A non-dual experience may highlight it, but it does not depend on non-dual experience. What is this? Making it more interesting, in the SS the Buddha says seeing is neither in the objects nor apart from the objects, not in form or emptiness nor apart from form or emptiness. What is this? Please note, these are questions for practice, not for thinking about. This is where vipassana helps. When something arises that I've seen before, I can easily say "not this." Otherwise, in the past I have been confused by the appearance of thoughts, feelings, etc. I am not a teacher. I am a student, like you.

Xabir, Regarding practice: I don't mean to sound harsh, but since you asked, based on your posts, I've noticed: 1. Lots of citations to authorities without relating it to individual practice. When you talk outside the authorities, the writing tends to be generic and generalized. It reminds me of the tone of non-practicing scholars. Theoreticians like to talk theory, practitioners like to talk practice. 2. A general, "this is how it is attitude" that draws clear distinctions and definitions, to the point of black and white: x is like this, y is like so. 3. A seemingly burning desire to teach and draw broad generalizations. In the beginning, and usually after an insight, there is a desire to talk, talk, talk. 4. A missing "X" factor from some one who has been there. When people have seen, they generally have a sense of authority about what they speak of. This reminds me of an early stage of practice in which one has gathered a lot of spiritual concepts, but has not had the practice to truly understand what they mean. How do I know this? I've been there. Sometimes, I fall back there. And I see it constantly, in my daily life, when I'm training the younger and less experienced. All of this points in my mind to some one who is young and intelligent, but not necessarily experienced. Thus I say, less theory and more practice. Also, you're wrong on Vipassana. I've practiced in the traditions of SN Goenka, Ajahn Chah, and Shinzen Young. All of these have led me to the sense of I AM, just not necessarily during the technique. If I see a blue sky, I see a blue sky, no matter what your authorities might say.

Xabir, I am glad that you have a teacher that you like and that excites you. Good for you. I invite you to "put down" all this theory and instead practice. Then we can discuss experiences instead of theories, and cite what we observe rather than what so-and-so said. I invite you to re-review the Kalamas Sutta on this issue. What I said is that in many ways, the anatta of Buddhism resembles the neti, neti of Advaita. This is not to draw an equivalence, or run down the path you're running down. How so? In neti, neti, you reject things as not self. In anatta, you also reject things as not self. This is indeed a similarity.

Darin, I invite you to look closely at the Buddhist portions of the SotGF. Turning the light around, seeing human nature's original face, the finger pointing at the moon--- these all draw from Buddhist sources. Of course, you are free to interpret them however you like!

Scotty, The 10 fetters and stages of enlightenment are scattered throughout the Pali Canon. Here is a sampling of quotes that I think are relevant: just click on the three fetters. Check out the Nan Yar Appendix in the Path of Sri Ramana Part One , especially p 186-188. I don't know if they are the same thing or not. By stage and states, I'm focusing on the fact that states come and go. You can have many states of consciousness during meditation, but often when we arise, they disappear. This is not enlightenment in my mind. Enlightenment would be there when you're off the cushion. I don't think there is an end. The universe is infinite, how far can you go?

exorcist, I find what you say interesting. Not found in the body-mind, that sounds right. I don't suppose you want to tell us the correct methods from your POV? I have an inkling, but would like your perspective.

Most of the teachers I respect all agree: Enlightenment is a STAGE, not a STATE. (I owe this useful distinction to Ken Wilbur.) We can have many states of consciousness. But enlightenment is a permanent shift in being. Buddha said that enlightenment was the permanent eradication of the 10 fetters. Ramana Maharshi says its the permanent dissolution of the self delusion. This is repeated so often in the literature, across cultural lines. Take the common metaphor of the snake/rope. When you look and see a snake, you think it's a snake. But if you examine it closely, you see it is actually a rope. In fact, the snake was never there. You would never go back to thinking that the rope is a snake. I think this is a cause for great confusion. Many people have a particular state experience, and think they are enlightened.

How so? Also, why do you feel all these other methods won't work? What method do you think WILL work?

Well, there are many assumptions here: 1) enlightened individuals advertise. 2) there is no reason, i.e. an systematic taboo, against openly expressing enlightenment. 3) enlightenment should happen quickly, etc. 4) You need a fully enlightened teacher. etc. 1. Regarding the first one: why does everyone think that enlightened people would advertise? 2. Admitting, discussing, and openly expressing personal views that one is enlightened is a systematic taboo in most systems. Also, different people have different definitions of enlightenment. Check out the works of Daniel Ingram for more on this. 3. Five years? Yeah, right. Most people don't have the discipline to meditate twice a day for 30 minutes. You really think folks are going to get it after five years? 4. Gurdjieff used to say that a man who isn't worth a farthing demands no less than Jesus Christ as his teacher. A fully enlightened teacher may be so far beyond you that he or she can't teach you at all. It's a classic case of assuming things should be the way we want, and if they aren't, writing it off.

So... it's not that the different shen's exist all at once--- but that these are different states or stages. The mindless mind sounds like the I AM.

Now for yin and yang shen. I understand the other shen's, but I am not tracking these. Any descriptions?

Zensunni, Santiago didn't say he cured cancer. He said Pak Muhammad did. The trouble is that you see what you want to see. Warm and fuzzy? You see what you want to see. Reality is funny like that. Which is why it's pointless to argue--- especially when some one has made up their mind already.

Zensunni, Everything is in a context. Santiago (Vajrasattva) may not be the most eloquent poster, but the reason people defend him is because of what he has done and taught for people on this very forum. Personal experience trumps all. Seriously--- you think that a forum like this hasn't had its share of hacks? You've been here a few days and all I've seen are negative posts and criticisms. Do you have anything positive to contribute?

Song, Great! Very helpful. Master Tseng Chen told us that Yuan Shen is the original mind and Shi Shen is the conditioned mind that arises in life. YS and SS decrease in ratio as you age. Is this your understanding as well?

Wu Liu, It is sometimes given in the beginning, sometimes later. I have only recently had success with it, after years of focusing/vipassana type meditation. Regarding calming the mind, in Buddhist sources I've found two approaches: Unifying the mind by concentrated effort. This is more or less what the Taoist teachers I've run across prescribe. Unifying the mind by allowing it to accept whatever arises. I think this is a more thorough approach.

The mindless mind: are you translating this from shen? Yang shen? Yuan shen?

Song Yong Dao, I find your comparisons of Taoism and Buddhism to be apt and lacking in the usual subtle anti-Buddhist sentiment often found in these comparisons. I was wondering if you could elaborate on this and the different kinds of Shen. How are each cultivated? Wu Liu, The term that pops into my head reading these is "dead tree Zen." This is usually applied to practicioners that only cultivate a certain mental emptiness. What you're talking about is a classic technique prevalent in not only Zen/Chan literature, but in Advaita as well.

There's an easy solution: don't study with these guys. It's not for you.

I think there may be reasons for this. Knowledge, simply put, is not meant for everyone. I think it has to come at a certain point in your evolution, so to speak. Gurdjieff used to teach that there was a cosmic balance being served by mass ignorance. I don't know if it's true or not, but I do know that causes and conditions are what they are. I've also noticed that any energy work is dependent on the following conditions: 1. The ability to concentrate. 2. The ability to relax. 3. The ability to surrender. 4. The discipline to continue practice. No matter the teacher, I think that these things have to be developed to a certain degree for things to get up and running. I had an interesting talk with one of Master Chen's students. Out of all the people he teaches, out of any given seminar, one or two at most will continue the practice three months out. Many times no one will. This is the way of the world. In other words, you need a little gold before you can make gold.

If it makes a difference, I also think Santiago has "the juice."

Dwai, I have a feeling that I am speaking Greek and you are speaking Chinese! Who is the observer observing? This is a great question. In fact, this is my current question. I have found that after a number of years of vipassana, it is easier to separate out the I from the objects. In many ways, the anatta of Buddhism resembles the "neti neti" of Vedanta. My path is the path of awareness. It is not really Buddhist, or non-Buddhist. Humanist, is more like it. The idea is to place awareness on everything in its path, up to and including itself, to thoroughly investigate all arising phenomenon. The further along I get, the less I find a use for philosophical concepts. In some ways, I am becoming philosophically stupid, and find these sorts of concepts slippery. When I look at a tree, it is one thing. If I look at a tree with thinking, it is another. This is why I say thinking obscures.

I would say: Yes. However, I am not enlightened. I would say that the object is what arises and passes, and the subject is what remains. I would toss the fish in the sky. Then it would know the sky for itself. This sounds like thinking to truth. I say the thinking obscures the truth. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What do you mean by using the mind? So it is better to be born into certain cultures than others? Let me share with you an interesting experience. Sometimes when I meditate, I fall asleep (ha ha! hard to believe! ). My personality, my history, everything that I think is me--- disappears. I am somewhere else, sometimes some one else completely. This persona, this cultural thing, is not the real me. It is an accident of birth. What I am is what sees this.