forestofsouls

A versatile degree that provides financial stability can be invaluable. I had the same decision years ago--- but for me it was between law, psychology, and some unknown option. I chose law. I don't make a lot of money, but it gives me the flexibility in finding a job where I can have enough time for myself and my family and not have to worry about money. Of course, if I could go back in time now, I think I would of liked to try becoming a monk for a while, or at least some long meditation retreats. Post-college is a unique time of personal freedom.

I'm not sure if qigong will give you what you're looking for. What you seem to be asking for is equanimity, rather than power. Qi gong can often accelerate things and make them more powerful. A good vipassana style technique, where you deconstruct your experience with equanimity, may help more. Just a thought.

Like everything else, it is probably not what you think it is. I have had very vivid experiences of chi that have literally blown my mind. I used to think that it was a metaphor/misinterpretation, etc. But there have been some fairly high level individuals talking in depth about chi. People probably far beyond us in intellect, wisdom, power, and sheer force of being. Chi, shakti, spirit, pneuma--- they aren't just talking about breath and vitality.

It might also facilitate interfaith harmony if people had to summarize their views in a few sentences instead of long, rambling paragraphs.

I would have people of other faiths get together and meet each other. It seems a lot of disharmony is based on ignorance. Once people come to understand that most people are "good" people, regardless of racial, ethnic, religious differences, then the walls just melt away. Anything that tends to get fossilized tends to corrupt the human spirit. Whether it is our own dogmatic beliefs, scientific materialism, religious or governmental institutions--- the tendencies are the same.

It is the nature of things to change. Rigidity means to remain the same--- to go against the natural order which is to flow.

I would say Yes and No. Yes, there are techniques we can use that are time tested, tried and true. No, because in the end, the path is formless. Every individual, every moment is unique and different--- how could a single way encompass it all?

To end suffering and be able to help others.

The only thing that has worked for me (if I understand the gist of the question) is to repeat my techniques over and over again: experiential sensory contact with whatever is arising. In some circles, this is called bare attention, in Zen it is sometimes referred to as contemplation. In the Bahiya Sutta, the Buddha teaches about letting the sound be without the listener. If it is a pressure in the foot, then just be with that. If it is rambling chatter, then let it be that. Over time, my grasping at these objects has diminished. My interest in classifying/conceptualizing/inner talking about things has diminished as I realize that it leads nowhere. Shinzen Young teaches the trickle-down theory of enlightenment: if you do the technique perfectly over time, then eventually your mind re-wires itself. This is the ultimate doing-non-doing--- planting the seeds and letting them grow.

In Search of the Miraculous by PD Ouspensky Mindfulness in Plain English by Bhante G These are the only books I can actually say changed my life. And they did so very profoundly.

All, A little while ago I posted an interview with Amrit Desai, a "fallen" guru who had immense shaktipat abilities, but had an affair with a student, mislead his whole congregation by emphasizing celibacy, and breaking his his own vows of celibacy. He seemed to learn a lot from his experience. He made explicit what I've thought implicitly--- that gaining power, chi, or shakti, does not necessarily give one wisdom. When I read modern Taoist teachings, they seem to focus on building and refining chi. When I read ancient Taoists, they seem focused on wisdom. It is almost as though there are two pillars in Taoism: energy building and wisdom building. The latter seems to be largely ignored in modern times. Personally, I get my wisdom practice from Buddhism, through insight or mindfulness practices. Lately, I've been learning energy practices from Santiago, which seems to add fuel to insight. It seems to me that these are different, but complimentary practices. What are some Taoist (or other) wisdom practices? Are they important?

The Buddhist system I use is based primarily on the Theravadin practice of mindfulness. I also see a similar path in Zen, but not as expressly laid out. The practice is simple, and consists of 3 main parts: 1. Practice of virtue, following the five precepts. 2. Practice of samadhi, which is developing concentration. 3. Practice of insight/wisdom, which consists of applying concentration to the subjective and objective world. In the Buddhist paradigm, this especially applies to the three universals characteristics of impermanence, dukkha (non-satisfaction), and non-self. This insight tends to arise naturally, without need for large amounts of theory and analysis. Practiced consistently and over time, this practice yields a wealth of knowledge. You gain actual, experiential knowledge of yourself, the world, and how the two inter-relate. You learn how the mind, feelings, and body works. You develop sensory clarity, equanimity, and ultimately, an ability to transcend the chaos of the world. You learn about impermanence, dukkha, and non-self through direct experiential knowledge. Personally, I've been able to catch glimpses of the Void. The practice also transformed me from a drinking, smoking, lonely, manic-depressive personality to a health-conscious, much calmer and happier family man.

At a certain point, it does seem as though the cosmos takes an interest in guiding you to the right teachers, books, ideas, conversations, experiences, etc. The Way, like everything else, is in flux.

This is one of the reasons there is Noble Silence on retreats. The easiest way to refrain from lying, and from wrong speech, is not to speak at all.

Ingram puts morality up front and center, where it should be. Not many teachers do that these days. The idea, in part, is that a moral foundation makes it easier to settle the mind and concentrate. The five precepts are the best moral training course I have ever taken, because they are so simple.

There are some interesting interviews here. I think the most interesting was Amrit Desai. He was the founder of Kripalu Yoga and was known for his intense shaktipat abilities. This is before he was exposed having an affair with one of his disciples (he was supposed to be celibate). He makes an interesting point about how energy work does not necessarily decrease the ego tendencies.

I may have worded that poorly. This is not to say that dukkha does not contain gross physical suffering, but that dukkha means so much more than that. Dukkha includes unhappiness is all forms: gross to subtle, etc. On a microlevel, sometimes it is taught that upon contact of the senses with any object (keep in mind the mind is the sixth sense) there arises a subtle craving, aversion, or indifference. These lead to the three root poisons, greed, hatred, and ignorance. Sickness, old age, and death are simply three extreme, common forms of dukkha, one or more of which will effects every human being. Encountering these phenomenon inspired Shakyamuni to leave his palace of bliss in search for a solution. Personally, I also think that he realized his wife and son who he loved so much would experience one or more of these things as well. He wanted not only to save himself, but also his family, and ultimately, all sentient beings. Keep in mind that there are also two other ultimate marks of existence: anatta and anicca. That is to say not-self and impermanence. These three marks are interrelated, and understanding one leads to understanding the others. Our ignorance of these marks causes dukkha. Realizing these truths on all levels of understanding leads to liberation. One dimension usually pulls in a practitioner, and then the others are revealed. For me, the door was anicca. I do not think most Buddhists would necessarily agree or even know about these things. Most native Buddhists are like most practicing Christians. However, you find these teachings among meditators, monks, and the suttas.

"Bhikkus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering." MN 22

"In buddhadharma, there is only one taste, the taste of liberation. That is the one dharma. Buddhism, on the other hand, is a manifestation of causes and conditions according to the changing environment that the buddhadharma encounters and the disposition of its practitioners. According to varying conditions and changing times, there arises what is known as Buddhism." -- Master Sheng Yen I think we often confuse the two.

There are three marks of existence and four dharma seals. There are four noble truths and the eightfold path. Not one of these deals with rebirth. I think theoretical arguments about rebirth detract from what Buddhism is all about.

I'm just piping in because of what was said here about Buddhism being a closed book. Maybe I can help clear up a few points. We often associate the word suffering with gross suffering--- starvation, physical pain, crippling depression, etc. This is not what "dukkha" refers to: it refers to the fact that all things are ultimately unsatisfying. Buddhism in this regard is dealing with ultimate reality-- i.e. things as they are universally, as opposed to how I personally suffer. This is not to say that we aren't satisfied in the short term--- a warm bed and a nice meal, a hot bath, a gentle kiss all produce a form of satisfaction. But it doesn't last. After a while--- seconds or years--- the satisfaction fades. We want something else, or want to avoid what we do not like. This leads to suffering-- sometimes on a very subtle level. Much of my own suffering never makes it into my consciousness, but if I monitor my body closely, I can feel it as subtle bodily tension. The Buddhadharma (or dhamma) teaches that only when we are free from causes and conditions, when our satisfaction is independent of any conditions, only then are we truly free. Otherwise we are simply driven by our cravings/aversions (or indifference). In many Buddhist practices, there is intent, at least in the beginning. To get to the other shore, we need a boat. A boat that sinks or doesn't steer just won't do--- we need a plan. Once we make it to the other shore, we no longer need to the boat.

Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha Master Sheng Yen was one of the greats.

See Sattipathana Sutta..

Why do we need to have things mentally sorted out before we go down the path? What is being looked for and offered here are answers: a pert, mental summation that allows one to set aside the issue with no more thought. Some one once wrote that all you get then are "dead answers" instead of "living questions." Ajahn Brahm has said that if you want to know the truth about past lives, you must first become good at meditation. Then you can gain experiential knowledge for yourself.