forestofsouls

And I was all like All the things I see about What is the difference?

One test I learned from a Goenka retreat was to see how long negative emotions last--- anger, depression, etc. For me, I could go into a negative state that lasted for months. Over time, their duration has gotten much shorter. The problem I see with meditation, unlike with martial arts, is that the effects are subjective and difficult to measure. There are fakirs in India who allegedly hold their arms over their head for years or take a yoga position until birds nest in their hair. But have they really accomplished anything spiritually?

Thanks Lin. I didn't know of any Buddhist movements and forms, except maybe for some kung fu and the Dharma Drum forms.

How about the Chronicles of Tao? Also, Eva Wong and Thomas Cleary have translated some old novels.

Lin, Nice article. I keep flirting with the idea of standing, do it for a while, and then stop. I know the basic posture where you stand with your arms around chest level, sometimes called tai chi stance or 3 circle stance. You say a Buddhist approach is to concentrate on the breath: would this be on the sensations of the belly? Also, do you have a recommended approach for beginners? (i.e. how long to stand, etc.)

I find it odd that the very people who come and evangelize a particular system suddenly wither when they are questioned, or when opposing evidence is presented to a "follow your bliss" sort of paradigm*. Especially when these same people come and say or imply their way is the best way/only way/superior way/original way and everyone else are "chimpanzees" babbling about the news. If LSD is a true way, then the way it has been presented publicly is in shockingly poor form and shows a fundamental ignorance of how human beings operate on an individual mental level and on a group level. A tree in some way is known by its fruits. If it is a false way, it should be questioned and exposed. Either way, if LSD cannot handle public questioning, then they should never have come to the public, not only on this forum but many others as well.

5 hours? You must be single!

So long story short: trust that LSD is the best because Sean Denty says so. The methods are secret, the masters may or may not play it straight, and individual experiences are not to be shared. No offense to Sean Denty, but why should we simply take your word for it? I find some of this LSD stuff interesting, but it seems so riddled with obscurity and contradictions the way it is presented publicly that I daresay one would have to be quite a fool to give it any credence. Why should any serious seeker pay the outrageous sum for such a teaching that tells you nothing yet demands a lot of sacrifice? This level of siddhi advertising attracts a very specific type of person. I wonder why David and the LSD gang would want the credulous, siddhi-entranced elements coming to their teachings? If I were a sage, I would want the opposite: the sober, mentally stable and well grounded practitioner. The former will stay until something else catches their eye. The latter will stay much longer, perhaps even to the end. Personally, this is why I prefer Buddhism, especially Theraveda: no games, no tricks. They are up front with their techniques, don't charge much, and tell you the real secret is dedicated practice. The measuring stick isn't whether one can light a shirt on fire, but whether one is leading a nobler, happier life.

What have you achieved?

I wouldn't be surprised. Evidently, using physical means to produce the electric shock effect is common in Taiwan. My tai chi teacher told me a story about how he was in Taiwan with Master Liao in the 70s. Master Liao was practicing taking electric shocks on himself. They went to see a famous electric qi master and when the master zapped Master Liao, Master Liao ripped open the man's shirt to expose a battery pack.

I'm 90 minutes from Denver.

Buddy, It sounds like Internal Martial Arts as you've seen don't lead to 1) increased health over time or 2) any degree of wisdom. Do you see them as a waste of time?

Looks like this has been done, w. Gurdjieff quoted previously.

I tried Bodri's 9 bottle breath for a while. It was refreshing. When I first started meditating, I tried pranayama but got nothing buy headaches. Personally, I have a prejudice against breath techniques due to Gurdjieff. In Meetings with Remarkable Men he talks about the body as a finely balanced, complicated system. Changing the breath can lead to many unforseen changes because it can throw that balance out of whack.

I think a better distinction is between those who are seeking power and those who are seeking enlightenment. Most of us probably fall in the middle. I would say power seekers use spiritual cultivation as a means to an end--- to become something bigger, better, more powerful. Becoming an Immortal, for example. Those who seek enlightenment don't care about what they can do, they are seeking liberation from the game altogether, powers and all. Becoming a Buddha or Self-Realized. Many Taoists I've met have been interested in power--- martial power, healing power, spiritual power. Most of the Buddhists I've met are more interested in dealing with whatever comes up--- good, bad or ugly. Of course, the one can learn from the other. Some degree of power, especially health, makes cultivation easier. On the other hand, anything gained can, and will be lost. Even the legendary gods and immortals die, one day. That would take a lot of faith in your teacher. A LOT of faith.

Maybe not. God in Genesis gave human beings what they wanted: knowledge of good and evil. One cannot know good and evil in paradise. In order to truly know something, it must become a part of oneself. Perhaps this is why Biblical knowledge is another way to denote intercourse.

The reports were very vague. I was wondering if some one was going to give more details.

Yes, maybe it was because of his mother. Or, maybe it was because death, disease, and old age were prevalent in ancient India, just as it is in the world today. Buddha was a realist. He saw the world as it is--- with thorns included. In the modern West, it is easy to think that life is paradise-- we live in the land of the gods. But even here, I can assure you that human cruelty is rampant. Sexual abuse, drug addiction, domestic violence, street violence is all around us, no matter what social class you're in. Even for those living a charmed life, we all will taste sickness, old age and death. We will have to face being with what we do not like and being away from what we do like. Suffering is a part of life. Buddha acknowledges that. But this is not the end of the story. Buddhism teaches us to live in such a world --- a world where children are tortured, maimed and killed, the guilty are not always punished, and tragedy falls on the just and unjust alike. We can hide our eyes from human suffering, or we can open to it with clear vision and a heart full of compassion. Of course, the opposite is true. We can be so blinded by this that we forget the beautiful things--- the face of a baby full of compassion for another baby crying; the sky at any time of the day that seems like it was built for human appreciation; the joy of love and family. Life is tragic AND beautiful, not one or the other. Buddhism can teach us to live in such a world of great joy and great sorrow. Of course, in the end, it is not up to the teacher, but to the student.

Taomeow, I'm not trying to convert anyone to Buddhism. In fact, I'm not really even a Buddhist in the common sense. I follow Buddhist practices. And the determination to follow through with Buddhist practice cannot be imposed on others. The reason I respond is to try to balance your statements, showing that there is another view from the angle of Buddhist practice. I will make the bold statement that there is no Buddhism apart from practice. While the sutras/suttas have their time and place (woefully often ignored in the West), it is practice that counts. In the Pali Canon, the Buddha again and again turned away from metaphysical questions: does God exist or not?; is there a soul or not? Questions of this kind lead to a "thicket of views" from which there is no escape. Rather, we are taught to start where we are. Am I suffering? What is its source? What is the mind? These are questions that can be verified from where we are. And the suttas state that we should verify everything ourselves, not because we are taught X or read Y. You question about ignorance is an ultimate question. But what is ignorance? Not somewhere "out there", but "in here." You're questioning how ignorance relates to the universe, but how does it relate to you? How does it affect your views? Take time, for instance: there is no past or future--- yet we believe in them. Why? For me, the mysteries of my own mind need to be addressed before I worry about the mysteries of the cosmos.

Heh heh Ai Wei. Chinese characters show up on my computer as ??. I thought your answer was ????.

Sorry, though you're entitled to your opinion, I still feel the need to clarify because this is a public forum with millions of hits, etc. etc. This statement is exactly the opposite of everything I've found Buddhism to be. When I speak of Buddhism, I've learned in the Theraveda and Zen traditions, so that's what I'm talking about. Buddhism teaches anatta, or no self. The self only exists in a state of ignorance. Buddhism is about carefully examining what we take to be the self until we discover that it is, in fact, empty of a real, enduring, substance. All things exist interdependently. I don't know where you get this idea that Buddhism teaches separateness of self. Buddhism embraces pain and suffering as valid parts of the human experience to be experienced, and experienced fully. Every one of my teachers has emphasized this. Buddhism isn't about denying pain and suffering, but rushing into it with open arms. When there is pain in meditation, I've been taught to sit with the pain (within reason, of course, no need to become crippled), to be with it, to accept it. Usually the mind tries to avoid it, or the body tries to avoid. The Buddhist teaching I've learned says to drive right into that pain and know it for what it is. Buddhism, at its base, is about investigation. Watching things very carefully. In this way, it is very common- sensical and scientific. Who is teaching Buddhism the way you and Taomeow describe? I'd stay away from them.

The reason why is because if one can demonstrate energy on a skeptic or a cynic, then the energy is objective, i.e. it is proven real. The only people I've seen able to demonstrate energy in this matter are Master Liao and his students in Chicago. They practice Tai Chi which as its basis uses the transference of energy. This would not be an acceptable martial art if your enemies had to be "open" to the energy. Master Liao lit me up like a roman candle demonstrating how chi should feel. I could feel inner energy strongly for the first time. At the time, I was a complete skeptic. I had fellow believers who felt little to nothing. But he can also demonstrate on non-believers. However, most of them cannot FEEL the energy, though it affects them. That is to say, he can immobilize opponents or send them flying with the slightest touch. His students report he does without contact, but I've never seen it myself. As for harmful effects, neither myself nor any others have had harmful side-effects whether they were "open" to the energy or not. There's different types of discharges that can push, pull, move the body this way or that with no harm at all. Did they develop this ability because they were power hungry? I doubt it. They may have started in the beginning for self-defense, etc. But as they progressed, they pursued loftier goals. I've been told that using tai chi for martial arts, or even simple demos, depletes your supply. And it takes far more chi for healing or spiritual purposes. However, the demonstration aspect is still useful because it demonstrates mastery. There's no b.s.ing yourself or others, it works or it doesn't. I'm not saying that Lama Dorje is a phony because he doesn't objectively demonstrate energy on non-believers, but people who can aren't necessarily power hungry either.

I think he might say--- Who is missing fatherpaul?

Taomeow, What are you talking about? Which Buddhist meditation technique are you referring to? When I see sitting forgetting, I think of the Buddhist practices of stopping-looking (samantha-vipassana). Thinking of old Chinese forms of Buddhist meditation, I think of the sitting practices of the Caodong, e.g. "silent illumination" but this requires one to sit with very clear awareness. How is emptiness a goal of Buddhism? Per Bodhidharma, "The Buddhas expound the Dharma of emptiness in order to eradicate the myriad false views. But should you then cling to emptiness, even the Buddhas will be unable to help you."

I was at a (Buddhist) retreat recently and the nun leading us explained that these are like clenching and relaxing muscles: to fully work out the mind, you need both. It sounds to me that you're experiencing dullness after a while with either technique. I think this is quite normal. One of my old teachers said its like walking from a smaller room into a larger one, it takes time to adjust. There is a stage of concentration where it becomes effortless, but at this stage the mind is clear and bright, there is no question. Personally, I think it just takes time and cultivation for the mind just as it takes time and cultivation for the body. Not too much, not too little.