forestofsouls

Most groups don't put the pursuit of spiritual powers front and center in this way. This is the whole problem with the sean denty presentation. You put forth bold opinions as facts that people should accept without questioning. When asked for specifics, it is too mysterious to explain, or dangerous, or you didn't really mean what you said. How many miracles did you see the Buddha perform? Milarepa? Padmasambava? You should familiarize yourself with the Kalamas Sutta--- the Buddha way isn't about bold statements, it is about personal practice. It isn't about what so and so said, or did, or is claimed to have done, it is about what YOU practice, what YOU see, and what YOU understand. Really, all these statements you make about anyone's internal states, other than your own, are opinions. Statements relating to events you did not witness are opinions. I don't understand how spiritual seekers become so sensitive on the internet. To paraphrase the Buddha, if some one states something false, then it shouldn't bother you for it is not true. If some one states something true, then there is something that can be learned from it. I don't see why people are constantly offended by anonymous comments made by complete strangers. If one cannot handle the internet, how will one handle the real obstacles on the spiritual path? You want people to be rather than they are. Causes and conditions. This is like complaining that life is suffering. One can whine and argue about it, but facts are facts. Again, from what you hear. There will always be subjectivity. Even if some one were to truly levitate in front of 50 believers and 50 skeptics, the believers would believe and the skeptics would negate. As for objective goals, I advise you Google Stages of Insight or check out Daniel Ingram's book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha. Most spiritual traditions have maps of the stages, except for those who believe maps can be traps (i.e. Zen).

People have chased after signs and wonders since time immemorial. I was listening to Ajahn Brahm yesterday on this very topic. He was citing the "boy without a brain" and NDEs as examples of consciousness existing apart from matter. He said that if monks displayed extraordinary powers, then people would be drawn to the powers and away from the dhamma. He also said that if one wants to see whether reincarnation, etc. was true for oneself, one needs to dedicate oneself to meditation for a long period of time. In my own experience, I've found that desire creates a mental state that is incompatible with clear seeing, like trying to see through boiling water. To attract people to material results simply reinforces the mental habits of desire, making it less likely to achieve any real spiritual result. Of course, I have no secret modern Chinese elite society to back me up--- only time tested meditation methods developed over thousands of years and made available for free. Unfortunately, they require a lot of effort and hard work--- often an anathema to modern Westerners.

How so? Is this based on actual experience or conjecture? Attachment to views is an important one to overcome. The elitism is some of these LSD posts clearly disqualifies the traditions as being Buddhist. Buddhism is a universal solution to suffering. Mahayana Buddhism especially, wherein one undertakes to liberate all beings from suffering. I have seen little to address this situation in any of the LSD posts. I will not comment on the validity or feasibility of LSD, but I will say that it is clearly not Buddhist. A Taoist priest once told me that Taoism is East to West and Buddhism is West to East, and it is best not the mix them. I find Buddhist practice better suited to me than Taoist--- but I won't go so far to say that Buddhism is superior. One need not attain full enlightenment to obtain benefit from Buddhist teaching. One need not find a fully enlightened teacher to obtain benefit from Buddhist teaching. There are many levels of Buddhist teaching depending on the level of the practitioner. Many people need help with stress and negative emotions. Buddhism has a solution. Other people need help with dissolving inner boundaries that keep them in ignorance. Buddhism has a solution. I, and many others, have found that the proper teacher and teaching is provided at the proper time. Many of your posts demonstrate a lack of knowledge about even elementary theoretical aspects of Buddhism. Perhaps you can stick to espousing your LSD and leave Buddhism out of it.

Trillum, I have some questions for you, because I have been in a similar place. First, what Vipassana method are you using? Second, are you sure its not something else, such as a feeling, a mental image, etc.? Third, does it change? For example, when you are tired or dreaming, is there a difference in clarity, vividness, etc?

I would suppose the ideal state would depend on your path. If your path is magical, i.e. you're trying to create or induce a certain result, then perhaps there is an ideal state. If you're path is mystical, i.e. you're trying to discover the true nature of reality, then any state is the ideal state, because any state is open to investigation. Just now, I was trying a long sit with restful states. However, over time, I became very agitated. This was a problem since I was trying to sit with restful states. When I realized that it was fine to be agitated, there was no problem. I was able to clearly see agitation, its nature, location, attendant mental images and sounds, and the fact that it is impermanent and unsatisfactory. Of course, then I was able to again sit with restful states!

Maybe a better question would be--- how have these teachers impacted your life?

I think a lot of Theravadans would disagree with you, Lin, and the Mahasatipatthana Sutta as well. In fact, according to Bhikku Bodhi, the word "sati" relates to sarati, to remember or keep in mind. You're example makes sense conceptually, but not experientially (at least not to me )

People have gotten into accidents studying their minds while they're driving. I think you will find you always have to limit what you're mindful of. You can only fit so many things in your mind at once*. Even looking inwards, there are deeper and deeper levels that appear over time. Most recently, I've noticed a subtle mind movement that occurs when I think on purpose than if thoughts simply bubble up. If you study your mind, you'll lose externals. If you keep inwardly focused, you'll miss the relationship between sensory inputs and mental reactions. If you focus on your mind, you lose the sense of the body. If you focus on your breath, you'll likely miss the contact of your feet on the ground. Just for reference, what are you studying the mind in relation to? *: In Mt Analogue, Rene Daumal suggests the average mind can only track 3-4 things at once.

My impression is that the goal defines the methods, and if one does not have a clear goal, then one will be stumbling around blindly in the dark. Perhaps we need a target until we discover there is no target.

It depends on what you're doing. Your inner chatter is not relevant when you're driving, but it IS relevant when you're studying your mind. Nothing is relevant but a single object if you're practicing one-pointed concentration. There is no one size fits all definition.

Straw men make for poor fighters. ... a

But how to change your views--- this is the tricky part.

This is a practice that is sometimes taught in zendos and is indeed one of my personal practices. I've noticed for instance that when I run, if I focus on external stimuli (sight, sound, touch) then I no longer suffer (just for the record, I hate running!). There is a flip side in which one is mindful of inner states. Again, while running (on track of course) I can focus on the inner sensations of pain, the inner feeling of discomfort, the inner complaining and wishing to stop, the images and fantasies, etc.

I would say mindfulness is paying attention to whatever is relevant in the present moment. Mindfulness of driving would be different than mindfulness of mind if you're engaging in a particular form of meditation. Personally, I also believe that it involves an awareness of being aware as well--- intentional awareness.

I find it interesting that I was just reading about the etymology of "personality". Apparantly from the Latin persona, referring to the masks worn my ancient actors to display emotion. The persona, I read, not only was able to show a large audience the inner traits of the character, but it also served as a voice amplifier since these were the times before PA systems. Over time, it seems many of us use personality to refer to our essence. But really, in some regards, it is an artificial contruct created for a certain audience that may, in fact, mask our inner selves. It is a tool that broadcasts a part of us to the larger world. Yet many of us mistake our artificial masks or persona for our true selves.

Don't forget the Kolodzey issue. They used to have a scan of the letter online, but you can get the scoop here.

What do you think that enlightenment is? I would say that an enlightened one has achieved the perfection of the four Brahma Viharas: Equanimity, Compassion, Loving-Kindness, and Sympathetic Joy. Equanimity would mean calm and balanced no matter what happens. Compassion means a deep kindness to others who suffer. Loving-Kindness is love to all, in fact, the love of a mother for her only child. Sympathetic joy would be to experienced the happiness of others just as your own happiness. They have achieved the end of suffering and dedicate themselves to the service of all beings. What is enlightenment is a Taoist context?

I think this is hard for the modern person to do. In this age of so much information and so many options, its far easier to pick and choose bits according to one's personal preference rather than strike out on single road and see where it goes. Mindfulness meditation used to be taught after years of purifying practices. Now anyone off the street can go a center and learn it. Of course, one must decide if one is in it for spiritual entertainment or spiritual growth.

All those things you listed are ultimtalely empty according to the Heart Sutra. I've been taught that the Heart Sutra is a Mahayana response to a perception (wrong, in my view) that Theravedan Buddhism breaks everything down into basic parts. There is no "person", there are the five skhandas. There is no matter, there are only the elements. The Heart Sutra comes along and says these, too, are empty-- elements and skhandas break down into emptiness. Therefore, there is utlimtately nowhere to stand, nowhere to go. With nothing to attain, the Bodhisattva depends only on this wisdom. In the end, even the immortals die.

Alone in a cave I divide myself in parts Yet no one is left

So maybe we're all just brains floating in space?!? Maybe so. According to this, it's more likely that we're brains floating in space than actual, embodied beings. So I guess there's probably nothing to worry about!

Bodri doesn't walk on water. Here's his prediction on Benzair Bhutto: "For instance Benazir Bhutto returns to Pakistan and there's a bomb attempt on her life. Curious, I compute the fortune and there it is - the shocking, frightening affair would quickly settle down and everything will be alright. "In such a year, an official may suffer an evil and treacherous attack, and a scholar has a sign of confusion at first, but success later. A commoner may have lawsuits and loss. An old person will face a life-threatening crisis, and a child will be frightened. As for the seven days, that is the time limit." Yep- (1) treacherous attack on her life, (2) lawsuit she's getting over (3) life threatening, (4) quickly settles down."

I think part of the difficulty with stating a goal is that they change. I doubt very many of us have had the same goals throughout our practice. Perhaps part of this is that the practice itself changes us, and our goals with it. Part of it may be because as we progress, our ignorance decreases, and we begin to learn what is possible and what is valuable. When we achieve our goals, are we really fulfilled? When I was younger, I dreamed of becoming rich and hedonistic. Now, older and more experienced, I understand that these things do not fulfill. When I started my practice, I wanted to not feel like a worm in a frying pain. Now that suffering has diminished, this goal is no good. Perhaps setting a goal limits us and our practice. Enjoying the practice for itself allows us to travel wherever the road takes us. We are not looking for specific fruits, and are able to reap the gifts we receive. Perhaps the greatest goal is to move beyond them.

I suppose I should give back the strength, inner peace, and inner revolutionary changes that have occurred to me since I started meditating. You may also want to tell the cancer patients that have overcome their pain (see Jon Kabat-Zinn for starters), and the countless numbers of people who have benefited from mindfulness practices. Most Buddhist teachers would strongly disagree with this statement, and see it as an attachment or clinging to form. It may depend on the type of mediation and what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to increase, refine, or purify inner energies, perhaps there is a point. But if you're building awareness and insight, then this is obviously not the case. I think perhaps this is a fundamental difference between Buddhist and Taoist approaches: Buddhism doesn't teach liberation by attaining, increasing, or getting--- it liberates through insight and wisdom. How to get insight and wisdom? Ethical conduct and building strong concentration. Then one can see reality for oneself. It doesn't matter if you have one legs or two, if you're a hunchback or paralyzed, you can practice ethical behavior, concentrate the mind, and develop wisdom.