Jetsun

It's an assumption that the origin of light or the mind is the lower Dan tien, some like Ramana said it is behind the heart. Some say it's the middle of the head. My advice is find out experientally which one is true.

There are young males the world over who can't get laid, in most countries they don't go and try kill everyone though. So it is probably something to do with the value of sexuality in American culture, so if you can't get laid you are considered to be worthless and inferior by society.

I think it is a reaction against all the alpha beta crap which is so prevalent in American culture. A symptom of a dysfunctional society.

There are all sorts of processes, but I think there must be something which keeps things localised inbetween lives and in the bardo otherwise the processes would split off in a million different directions and different lives.

It is a good text. There is debate though as to what "turning the light around" really means. Some say it is an esoteric energetic method of moving body energies in a reversal direction, others say it is about turning the light of awareness round on itself or to the source of awareness. I personally think it's more about turning around awareness which isn't as complicated or obscure as some of the translations make out

I use Medigong for a simple timer and Insight Timer for when I need a more complicated set of alarms

How is it misconstrued? You explicitly and clearly expressed the desire that only women should post in this thread. It's clear as day for everyone to see. Then you ban someone for not agreeing with your authoritarian position. Something is very wrong here.

You said: "I would ask that any further comment in this thread is left for female users of that section of the Dao Bums rather than us men making clever comments." Isn't that the same thing as saying men shouldn't post in this thread? Seems pretty plain to me and what Karl was referring to.

I thought Nuwa was Womens cultivation but not barred to men, whereas there is a specific sub section within there called "Womens Sanctuary" which is women only. Plus some of the threads were moved in there from other sections which accounts for some of the male posters Not that I see any difference between male and female cultivation myself

All the atoms of your body come from the earth and it provides all the sustenance and the environment it needs to live, so it that sense it loves you. In the 4th Way tradition of Gurdjieff they say that humanity are the sense nodes or sense organs of the earth, as our bodies are its most sensitive and advanced apparatus. Yet humanity is the bridge between heaven and earth in the sense that it is only through humanity that certain energies can transition from dense earth energies to higher vibrations, which in turn helps the development of the universe as a whole, which is the higher role or purpose humanity has on the planet.

Depends what you practice, it's certainly possible that it can make you less grounded

While many spiritual people focus on love and compassion I have found in my own life that if you want to really become emotionally mature it is more about accepting the more unpleasant feelings like rage, jealousy, envy. You have the capacity to become Hitler and the impulse to murder isn't actually that far from the surface. The human being has absolutely everything in it and ego consciousness is often about trying to deny certain parts and only keep the more socially acceptable aspects of humanity and everything else is thrown into the dark of the unconscious, where is actually becomes more powerful and dangerous than if it is conscious and accepted. When we wall ourselves off from "negative" feelings it overall reduces the capacity to feel, by shutting off your anger you also shut off your love. The essence of anger is actually prajna, or the primordial wisdom which cuts through all the bullshit. The main issue I think is that our emotions get entangled with all our stories and beliefs about life where they stop being genuine and start being about things we have dreamed up, for example a great deal of the emotion you see on tv on reality shows is all about peoples stories they have about themselves, it largely isn't genuine emotion.

Yes you still don't get it. The mind will call something a chair for functional reasons, it helps us navigate reality and discern between two things. This isn't denied. But that is a practical function of the mind which helps us get by, it isn't the actual way things exist. Understanding this teaching has huge implications when you apply it to the way you see yourself and your own ego. The mind creates an illusion you exist as a separate independent entity, but the reality is that you exist in dependence on many causes and factors. To see the reality rather than the illusion means less selfishness, less grasping at life and less grasping at illusions, more realistic outlook with regards to our impact on this world and the environment. Its really a matter of seeing things as they exist or living from a mistaken perspective.

I don't think you understand the teaching. They don't deny that things exist, they don't deny there are consequences for actions, like I say there is no denial of cause and effect. All they say is that the way things exist is different from the way the mind habitually and mistakenly thinks things to exist. The mind sees things as existing inherently, by their own power, but the reality is that they exist dependently upon many causes and conditions. Which is why when you examine things closely you can't find anything to exist by itself, examine a car all you find are loads of parts, nothing you can pin down as "car", the same with a person just a load of parts nothing you can pin down as being the person. So to say nothing exists at all is nihilistic and obviously untrue, but to see things as existing dependently avoids that.

The Tibetans get round this with their concept of dependent origination , which basically says that things exist differently to what the mind commonly perceives in that things can't be found to exist by themselves, therefore they are empty of inherent existence, but can be viewed to exist in dependence on many causes and factors, so dependent existence. Due to the nature of all phenomena being dependent on many causes then the principle of cause and effect is not denied, thereby nihilism is avoided, yet the nature of things as being empty and inherently non-existent is also not denied.

How can the space between thoughts be a thought? it is impossible. Thoughts arise within something, they don't define what they arise within by definition, thoughts arise within awareness. What awareness really is nobody can really say, but all sorts of things happen when you rest in or wake up as as awareness, including the break down of your limited personality which only exists in the realm of thought and imagination. What you describe as nothing is an experience, Buddhists have written volumous texts trying to describe it, space, emptiness, but as they say anything written about it can only point to it, it isn't the thing itself. As soon as you try to talk about it you are in the past trying to conceptualise a non conceptual experience. Therefore teachers have resorted to trying to point it out through Koans and Parables rather than try in vein to adequately conceptualise the impossible. I'm sure the Buddhists have considered maturation, they have been studying depth psychology for thousands of years.

Except this contradicts pretty much all the highest teachings of Buddhism like Dzogchen and Mahamudra and many Hindu schools like Vedanta. Consciousness has to be conscious of something yes, but the paradox is that only awareness can recognise awareness. It is possible to be aware during the gaps in thoughts, during the deepest stages of sleep and during stages of meditation when there is no object, this has been verified by many people the world over and can be verified by yourself. In those places there is nothing to be aware of, so no consciousness, yet there is still awake objectless awareness. The reason why we don't go there or deny it because the ego based subject-object separation consciousness can't go there, so you as a separate individual "I" don't exist there. Usually conscious awareness flows out to an object, but what happens if you turn that conscious awareness around to look at what is looking? this can be done right now, it is just doing a u-turn which is the same thing as the enquiry "who am I?" you are just "turning the light around" as they say in the Taoist text the Secret of the Golden Flower. All it takes is turning your awareness around 180 degrees.

So you believe you have the same enlightenment as the Buddha or Ramana Maharshi?

Is there any awakened or enlightened person through history in all the wide variety of spiritual traditions that have said they were awakened or enlightened through their reason? The vast majority have suggested going beyond it. I guess Karl is the first one.

Neem Keroli Baba was considered as an Avatar by his disciples, a reincaration of the Hindu Deity Hanuman and many miracles were reportedly performed by him. He was first made famous by Ram Das and his "Be Here now" book in the 70's and Krishna Das and his Kirtan music But less well known is that Steve Jobs visited his ashram while trying to gain inspiration for Apple and he recommended Mark Zuckerberg do the same when he was struggling. http://m.indiatvnews.com/news/india/kainchi-dham-temple-steve-jobs-apple-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-54883.html

How is the intellect holistic? You can't be including the wisdom of the body or heart in your definition as it doesn't have to be trained or refined particularly. Many modern day experts in psychology are now saying that the inherent wisdom of the body has a greater intelligence to deal with a lot of the stresses, traumas and difficult situations we encounter in life than the intellect, the reasoning part of mind often just gets in the way in processing much of our life by creating stories and beliefs around our experiences. I don't see how you can be including the greater intelligence we see all around us in your definition either, for example the wisdom it takes to balance an ecosystem or to produce life, because that wisdom is part of the whole and is inherent, so isn't limited to an individual trained mind. To be honest in comparison to these already existing innate intelligences the intellect is pretty limited and unimpressive.

You can train the intellect like a tool, but a tool is just a tool, it doesn't define who you are. You can spend your life perfecting the intellect into an amazing instrument, which can help in many areas of life like earning a living, but at some point it is going to disintegrate, you could get a brain injury, alzheimers and then it dies. Therefore if you are exclusively identified with that changing, disintegrating aspect of yourself you inevitably are going to be living in fear and isolation. You are still living in a imprisoned, limited sense of yourself which isn't actually true.

I agree somewhat with what you say here that there is a continual process of false ego recreation which is very tricky and that many practices can hinder rather than help. But I don't think you have gone far enough in your enquiry if your conclusion is that all you have and can trust is the intellect. Even on the simple level it isnt the intellect which beats your heart and breathes the air. The intellect is a constantly fluctuating ever changing thing blown this way and that by whatever wind comes your way. What is the only thing which is not changing and reliable? As Ramana Maharshi says the essence of the spiritual enquiry is to "Let what comes come; let what goes go. Find out what remains." What remains certainly isnt the intellect, the intellect isn't there during the gaps between thoughts, isn't there during the deepest stages of sleep, or during the deepest stages of meditation and what it arises within obviously can't be defined by it. So how can the intellect be what you are if you don't dissappear when the intellect isn't there?

All I can say is that position and conclusion you are taking is incredibly limited and imprisoning. I am not trying to deny the intellect at all, only trying to directly point to an aspect of your experience which the intellect can't pin down, can't dominate.

You don't really answer any of the enquiries. What is it that thoughts arise within? What is its substance? What is its colour, nature, location, qualities? For something like a thought to arise it must arise within something in order for it to be differentiated. You can't answer the query because it is an area of experience which can't be grasped, defined, pinned down by the intellect or by thought, yet it is a ever present vital aspect of reality. In the deepest stages of sleep there is nothing to be aware of, yet many people in the spiritual traditions say that it is possible to still be aware in deep sleep even though there is nothing to be conscious of. Awareness isnt the same as consciousness and awareness can be aware of itself. Which is the same thing that can be experienced in deep meditation, objectless awareness. The universe doesn't cease to exist when there are no objects to be aware of, awareness is primordial, it is prior to thought. Realising that has a dramatic consequences on your sense of self. But this is only something which can be experienced experimentally, it isn't something to be worked out and turned into a intellectual position.