Cheshire Cat

Visuddhimagga http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

Great!!

Thank you for your reply Personally, I never saw a real shapeshifting, not even a ghost's materialization. It seems that many shamans retain a theoretical knowledge of these things, but they can perform only in a dreams-cape, lucid dreaming state. They speak of a way of immortality which consists of mastery of a series of magical powers (like shapeshifting), and then performing these skill in a certain order.. Did the shaman talked about some kind of sexual discipline (like celibacy, retention,etc...)?

The article say that pneumonia was caused by the flu. Master Nan said that when your Qi-channels are open to a certain degree, there's a great risk of wind invasion (flu, etc..). Recently, I'm a bit skeptical to this specific statement of the Master...

This is interesting. Please, can you share some more information about shamans and immortality? I know that this is the most esoteric aspect of traditional shamanism. Shamans didn't talk about this matter.. or they just give tiny bit of knowledge. It is so, mainly because those teaching are traditionally given to very few worthy individuals... or none at all, if the master shaman decides so. Of course, asian shamanism is deeply influenced by indian yoga... but I found this kind of knowledge in south america also.

In my opinion, the distinction between spiritual cultivation and magic is... words. With words, we shape our reality, we create our rituals, we materialize our desires. Magic, in my experience is just that. In our ordinary lives, we give meanings to the various circumstances. Thus creating a coherent world-view. What you could hardly believe -without a practical experience- is that... it's the meaning that creates the circumstance. Or maybe, they happen simultaneously... What's important is that for practical application, we create new meanings to manifest specific results. This is Magic in a few words. Meanings are expressed by words. I strongly suggest the books of Erving Goffman (Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, etc...). He was a sociologist, not a magician... but he saw very very clearly how the words create the "magic" of our social world. He saw our social rituals and how we are strongly rooted in "meanings". He saw what we unconsciously do to perfect the "big ritual" of our social lives. It's like a self-exploration. As for Spiritual cultivation ... well, the first step is to forget words

I have nothing more to add to what I've just said. Thank you for your kindness and your patience in listening to me

Now I suspect that the chinese term used for compassion is slightly different from our western "compassion". The etymology of "compassion" is Latin, meaning "co-suffering." More virtuous than simple empathy, compassion commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism.(wikipedia). But, I'm quite sure that there's no compassion amongst animals. They don't need compassion. They aren't lacking. This is what Lao-Tzu said in chapter 5 of DaoTeChing. 天 地 不 仁 ， 以 万 物 为 刍 狗 ﹔ 圣 人 不 仁 ， 以 百 姓 为 刍 狗 。 　 　 天 -->Heaven 地---> earth 不--->are not 仁---> humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue [...] 圣--->the sage 人--->man 不--->is not 仁--->humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue 以---> to treat 百---> one hundred, moltitude 姓--->clan, families 为--->as 刍--->straw 狗--->dog May I translate as "The sage is not human" or "The sage is not compassionate" ... because "he treats all human beings as straw dogs"? Edit: I just found a few authoritative translations of those verses: Heaven and earth are not humane; they regard all beings as straw dogs Sages are not humane; they see all people as straw dogs.. (Cleary) Nature is not humane. It treats all things like sacrificial objects. The wise are not humane. They regard people like sacrificial objects. (Beck) Heaven and Earth are not humane. They regard all things a straw dogs. The sage is not humane. He regards all people as straw dogs. (Chan) Heaven and Earth are not Good they treat the thousands of things like straw dogs The Wise Person is not Good he treats the hundred clans like straw dogs. (La Fargue) Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with. (Legge) Nature is unkind: It treats the creation like sacrificial straw-dogs. The Sage is unkind: He treats the people like sacrificial straw-dogs. (LinYutan)

This is the theory, and it is very profound. But, let's look at the practices: hindu deities require devotion and prayers. To practice with a deity means basically... to pray and carrying some specific kind of vows. This is what people do in buddhism and vedic religion. You yourself say that the only discrimination is in term of function and I agree. Thus, in this case there's no difference in worshiping a hindu deity or his equivalent buddhist deity because the Buddha said "Work out your salvation" and not "Find a God who may save you".. not even "Adjust your external conditions so that you may cultivate in peace". But then I ask: Why did Shakyamuni introduced those additional deities? At his time, deities practices were observed. What was the use of this? If Shakyamuni never introduced any gods worship practices, then we may assume that the deities themselves changed their outer names (or appeared in new manifestations). But, if this is the case, then Shakyamuni did something wrong that required a "fixing action" from the gods. He settled an incomplete dharma.

Yes I add just a little shade. Imagine a wandering seeker, a traveler who accidentally falls asleep under a tree, one night. A thief suddenly appears and steals the traveler's boots. This would be the greatest misfortune for the seeker because he use to walk all day long. Now imagine a noble Raja who sits on his sofà all day long, listening to instrumental music and watching dances. One night, a thief steals his boots. The Raja would hardly notice the missing. Probably, the thief makes him a favor because now he sits more comfortably. The same thing has a different meaning for different persons. Even if they experience the same accident, it has different connotations because of their different way of living. It's the same with spiritual beings (like bodhisattvas): in the real world, there's no such a thing as absolute goodness and benefit. What's good for you, may be harmful for other things (even if you don't consider them as sentient beings: shamans all over the world teach that everything is "aware"). Everything has different sides which we -as humans- depict them as good and evil, based on our view. So, I may deduce that what's good for people similar to me, it's good for me... but if something is depicted as the absolute "panacea", excellent for everyone, perfect and complete by itself (like the zhunti mantra), then doubts pop in my mind.

There are fundamentally two distinct branches: spiritual cultivation and magic. Spiritual cultivation is non-denominational... there's no problem of mixing. Magic is deeply related to a particular cultural envirnment. If you choose to mix, you should find a way to create a balanced synchretism.

:-) If it is so, can you explain how one can use the following statement to understand utilizing his own conditions? "Oh yes, the Hindu Realms and Buddhist Realms interplay simply because they are of each other in different vibrational levels manifesting for specific functions in different realms. Different names, different forms, different functions, and definitely transformation bodies of each other. hahahaha It gets so deep...and then, it is so obvious." Yes, I agree. Religion is human life. ... but enlightenment isn't an evolutionary stage of human conditions. Religion takes human understanding and experience as definitive and complete. Thus, building philosophical structures... one on another. And then claiming that they are not philosophy, but reality itself. Lao-tzu flees on the mountains on seeing this Attributes that are exclusively humans -as compassion- becomes the attributes of the deities... or buddhas and bodhisattvas in the case of buddhism. In the case of compassion, if it were the main attribute of a bodhisattva and the bodhisattvas act in the animal realm (animals are sentient beings in buddhism)... then we should find compassion among beasts.

There are statements based on dogmatic belief (the sutra say thus, so...) and there are statements based on shared experiences of this reality. The latter is called science. And yes, it's an hypocritical cult.

This is exactly what religion is all about. In the West we have a "branch" of religious thought that is called theology: in this matter, people studied things like -how many angels can sit on a pinhead?- and various explanations on how the world is shaped, class of heavenly beings, etc... This is what I call religion... Everyone can easily prove to himself that bodhisattvas come from hindu tradition. People wanted to worship Gods: this was necessary to transform an ascetic movement (the original buddhism) into a religion. Mahayana buddhism isn't just practice: it develops all sort of ideas about the cosmos, the mind and it's relation with other religion... I've heard buddhists that measure the realization of Lao-tzu as limited to alaya-consciousness.

This is religion. How can you prove it?

For me, the fact that could hardly hurt, it's something that shouldn't be taken for granted. This is the main reason for which I'm in to this thread: to read of experiences with this practice. But it's difficult because people are usually not aware of the most subtle transformations that happen in their spiritual practice.

I've met very good people. If we call them bodhisattva, I agree. I've seen groups of people and associations that work hard for the benefits of human beings. If we call them bodhisattva, I agree. But, I've never seen a mighty bodhisattva with the special siddhis and majesty...

Yes, I agree Once, I myself tried a mantra of a hindu deity that undoubtedly produced a response in dreams. My point is just that we don't really know enough of them. Our "business" with them happens in a realm in which we have very little awareness and understanding of what is going on... it's like seeing a snake and thinking that it's a bamboo stick. So we don't know exactly what are the goods shared and the consequences after this lifetime. Scholars believe that the mahayana bodhisattvas are strictly related to hindu Gods from whom they came. For example, chinese Zhunti is Cundi in Sanskrit ... from the Goddess Chandi. To avoid any mistakes, I prefer to follow the instruction of the Buddha of the early canons that is "Respect the Deities, but rely on yourself for Nirvana".That is also the view of some daoist schools.

The ancients said that if you are cooking sands to make rice, you can add any extra ingredient without compromise the final result...

This is an old known method. This leads to orgasmic sensations at first. Then leakage if your Qi-channels in the area are not open to a sufficient degree.

Although there is some wisdom in your words, your attitude is in the domain of religiosity and not of spirituality. There are hundreds of relative experiences, they are all true (christians, buddhists..even atheists). But there is just one absolute experience we may have, that it's totally independent from ourselves.

For me, it's not about the existence of a Zhunti Buddha somewhere. I cannot prove that she doesn't exist either. If she exist and I can make a contact through this mantra, how could I believe that she will bring me to enlightenment? The whole bodhisattva story, their vows, etc... This makes little sense to me. No, it's totally non-sense to me. Why don't the bodhisattvas reveal themselves to humanity so that we know the true dharma? Why doesn't Jesus simply appear in a tangible way to humanity to show us the true religion? Those questions share the same answer, imho. Also christian mantras can stabilize your mind, cultivate virtue and affect any area which you concentrate upon. In addition, many christian mystics saw angels, talked with Jesus and performed miracles. But, I cannot accept that Jesus Christ is the only son of an almighty God,etc...

I cannot prove to myself that bodhisattvas have some relations with my spiritual path. As well as I cannot prove to myself that some Jesus Christs may save humanity... Sometimes I pray the Gods that I can understand, but it's not for enlightenment.