JustARandomPanda

Lucky.... Are you also studying with a Teacher of some sort or are you sticking with the DIY-only route like GiH?

Are you still running into walls with your meditation, Lucky? Or have they been resolved satisfactorily for you now?

Apologies but I liked this so much I had to tag it here. Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

Both you and Cat are leagues ahead of me energy-wise. I live alone too so maybe someday I'll catch up with you two.

Well... I have the following book but I've yet to read more than just the introduction. From what little I read though I'm delighted I got it. This thread has made me think it'd probably be a good idea to take it down off my shelf and finish it. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority

Is it safe to say your meditation experiences have led you to agree with Dwai and the position he argued in the thread What the Self is and Is Not: Can Not Ignore the Most Basic Fact of Existence ?

Sigh... I am growing a bit weary of assertions this or that tradition or this or that exercise is better than another. It makes things confusing and I'm already confused enough as is.

All these discussions make me wonder... How far along in the jhanas and insight stages has each participant attained? I've already stated mine (which is basically squat and seems at an impasse so much that I've had to appeal for help from other mediators elsewhere).

Interesting. I've noticed that Swami G teaches a sort of "I AM THAT" realization. Although I take it that she is not a Buddhist or Taoist but possibly some sort of Vedantin? I have always puzzled at her "You are THAT" assertions to all the people who appeal to her for help. I take it one derives this realization from some sort of concentration or insight practice? What stage/phase/level leads one to this 'realization' and what makes someone believe they've come to the end, there's no more left to investigate and/or realize? You do realize don't you that your assertion can be seen as evidence that where you start determines where you end up. This is why I sometimes suspect Marble is right to consider all these squabbles as just spinning castles in the air. They certainly leave me confused a lot. BTW - what meditation technique does one use to investigate this I AM experience? I know that VH. I'm the same way. I believe there must be a spark in you somewhere to want to learn to write to clearly for others and not just for yourself if A) you plan on going to college and B ) you genuinely want to get these teachings out to other people. *shrug* I dunno...maybe check out that grammar book I linked to earlier? Surely it couldn't hurt? You might be able to find it in a local library or request it via Inter-Library Loan. Disclaimer: Even though it may appear in some posts like I "know" what I'm talking about I really don't. All I'm really being is just a Keyboard Jockey. My current attempts at meditation have slammed into a wall and are sucking uber-bad. I've even posted an appeal for help on some meditation forums. I wonder if I've hit the stage Daniel Ingram calls the Arising & Passing Away? It kinda sounds like it from what I've read so far of his descriptions of it.

Thank you. I will definitely have to check that book out! This is one of the things Daniel Ingram also mentions in that essay I linked to. Assuming I understood him correctly he would agree with the above statement. Edit: Here's another fun Daniel Ingram Essay. In some ways he reminds me of VH. Very in-your-face, pull-no-punches guy. Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

I am interested in Franz Bardon's books. Can anyone tell me their experiences using his system? Especially to awaken Chi and/or Kundalini or any other positive (or negative) experiences? Can they help one overcome blockages whether physical or psychological? What about hang ups vis-a-vis sex and shame? Do they help one experience emotions? Do they work with KAP 1 exercises well?

Well here's what Daniel Ingram has to say on the subject. And from what I take - he seems to disagree on some points with VH (and perhaps Norbu too? Assuming Norbu's understanding is identical to what VH has been posting all this time). Or maybe he just explains it a whole heck of a lot better than VH. That too, is a possibility. His essay has much to ponder. I suspect also that Drew Hempel would appreciate Daniel's PoV. No-Self v. True-Self

I've been wading my way through the Kunlun poll thread and as long threads tend to do it seems to have wandered away (at least at the point I'm at) from it's original post. However, the spin-off discussion got me curious. What is the difference between belief and intent? I read one poster saying intent precedes beliefs. That all we experience (does he mean 'how we see or interpret things') ends up as a result of one's intent (is this the same thing as the Buddhist classification of Intent aka Volition Form?). Of course it then got further into a discussion of whether there's such a thing as a reality 'out there' v. one in here. I myself am quite confused on the matter. I'm on my first baby steps to trying to attain higher or deeper awareness. So of course to me there still seems to be a very blatantly obvious 'out there' we all share. Otherwise why can't I just materialize a million dollars into my bank account via intent and have it show up the next day for real? Did my own intent make that drunk driver hit me and mess up my back and neck? Other examples: Did that little 6 year old girl in Florida (who was the inspiration for a federal law) who was abducted one night from her bedroom, brutally raped then buried alive somehow unconsciously made this happen to herself via her own karmic baggage or intent? Do the Dalits of India deserve their crap status and crap treatment because it's just past bad karma coming back to haunt them? I confess this is one of the biggest reasons I intensely dislike the doctrine of Karma. It seems waaaay too easy for people to justify or explain away super-bad, truly evil shit happening to either themselves or others as 'well it's your own karma coming right back on you'. But to get back to that discussion I do remember the thing about inner intent shaping 'out there' reality as being similar to a page by a guy from South America on his investigations into whether there is anything that survives or manifests beyond the material realm. Oddly enough...he said there were only 2 philosophies he's ever been able to follow through to their logical ends that were consistent with the possibility of an afterlife of some sort. Solipcism or Panpsychist Brahmanism (wtf is that?! ). Current day Materialism - which is the alter men like James Randi and Richard Dawkins worship at - falls into the black hole of being unable to explain Consciousness - it's the White Elephant in their theories they can't explain and so consistently run from. The other is the belief in an Essence that is not identical to the Body - which leads to Dualism. It too runs into major problems. The only philosophies which did not run into problems were as he said Solipcism and Panpsychist Brahmanism. I'm confused.

NORBUTRON!!!!! *falls out of chair LMAO* p.s. Sorry VH...but that was just too damn funny! p.p.s. I have this book. Folks might want to check it out. Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English, Second Edition

Dependent Origination is the acid that eats away even this explanation.

You know...I used to say the same. But now I understand this statement you make in jest holds truth. An uncomfortable one more than I like to admit. But your joking assertion is the very reason Bodhisattva's act as they do. It's why they are able to extend endless compassion equally to both a murderer and a saint. This truth is also why it is said God / Allah / Brahman is able to offer endless compassion to the murderer as much to the saint. What did Jesus say when he hung upon the Cross? "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"

LMAO! Holy cow!!@!!!! Are you serious?!! uh...dude...you just described to a PERFECT T Precisely what I've been doing for the past 6 months for hours on end. Except I didn't think it counted for squat! Ok...I think I'm gonna go freak out now. edit: VH...are you for real.. Because I'm seriously freaking here.... if this is some kind of sick joke on your part....

Oh dear. I must really suck at being selfless toward others. My meditation has stymied again. I haven't even attained the first jhana, nevermind anything else. *sigh*

This statement has me curious. Does this mean the journey toward Awakening / Enlightenment is directly proportional to the amount of your merit you've given away to others?

The other day I found I didn't have the heart to kill a bug when formerly I would have done so without thinking. If Buddhism is true this bug could someday be a human. I suspect I was a bug in many former lives.

Dependent Arising is the acid bath that breaks down everything it touches. There is nothing that could stop it from being true. Notice I did not say it IS true. I have no idea if it is or not. I just said there's nothing that could stop it from being true all the way through. That is what I find so disturbing about it.

Something seems...wrong with this statement. I can't put my finger on it but it seems wrong. I don't know how to explain why I see this as a wrong statement.

Actually it does not necessarily follow that just because a mind exists it therefore means it exists inherently. This is a leap in logic. It is also a leap in logic to say that if a mind doesn't inherently exist this ipso facto denies Nirvana. Nirvana doesn't necessarily rely on inherency of mind to go about 'nirvana-ing'. I confess I am still confused about all of this. But I admit it is this lack of inherency of all things that has upset my ego-ic apple cart so to speak and has me a bit depressed. Just because we do not like something it doesn't follow it may not be true.

A fine exposition of the philosophy of Solipsism