de_paradise

Hi Chang, how is your concept changing? From what to what? I think lineage empowerments can be excellent.

One of the most important lessons of a continuous Kundalini awakening, with all the unpleasant and weird energetic effects is that "you are not really in control" of your body, emotional states, proclivities, etc. The ego really hates this, it wants you to know that its static version of you is under control, and that any Kundalini weird stuff is akin to a temporary sickness. But in Kundalini, you are constantly reminded that you have no control, you are not doing it, its changing you, somehow slowly your personality is changing. One can fight this (wah, I want to be a rich entrepreneur), not some lame ass kundalini guy who stares at trees) , or go even deeper towards a more important message: There is no inherent self, or, there is no self that exists on its own independently, or, the static, isolated self is an illusion. We are a sum of all of the parts, causes, conditions, interactions. Clearly the Kundalini energy effects are not part of the self we consider to be the self: and yet there is no denying that they are there. You have to take into account that you are part of an energetic world and that these forces are working through you. You have to admit, and even contemplate that yes there is a self, but it's not the inherent self you thought. Energetically you are simply part of a landscape. There's a sense of you'ness being in control, and at the same time not. If, instead of going into the self-pitying ego, when we are feeling heavy Kundalini effects, we can use it to make progress by contemplating how we are not separate, there is no inherent self that is apart from the Kundalini. There is a larger field of consciousness, and you are simply a part of it, like a blade of grass in a field. It is not some weird outside force, nor is it some weird little tree growing inside you from the base of your sacrum. It is the field of consciousness reminding your ego "small self" that you are field of consciousness too. It is the real you and you can love it. You can actually surrender to the idea that there is no you existing on its own. Buddhists contemplate this by using logic, but Kundalini people get this lesson for "free" in the form of weird energetic effects. Only to use this free lesson, one needs to contemplate non-separateness, and "no independent self apart from the vast conscious energy fields", and not just compartmentalize or ignore the effects.

Buried in the Buddhist jargon of my post is actually a method, simply: Identify oneself with the Kundalini energy and what it represents (cosmic, evolution, intelligence, all pervasive, all connecting), using the term Kundalini instead of Buddha-nature or God, instead of identifying with the small static "ego self" People with Kundalini symptoms are constantly reminded of Kundalini in kriyas, energy surges, tickles, weird things. Use the reminders to identify with the one-ness rather than as pesky annoyances to the the small self. See oneself as an energetic being part of an evolving energetic landscape, and see other people also as parts of the same energetic landscape, and the Kundalini potential in them, rather than their separate ego selves.

Ha, it seems we are thinking on and practicing similar stuff, which is why I posted my thoughts on your other thread. I think the fruitfulness of non-ego behavior in society, living expression, becomes more obvious in compassion practices ( assume you are on a path to become a Buddha) where the self-cherishing mind is deliberately dropped and worked with and the expression of love and compassion deliberatly increased, leading to: stable mindedness and a state where a feeling of connected, non-seperation awareness. That blissful connected state is the fruit of the compassion practice, the release of the self-cherishing mind, but the compassion practices have the pre-requisite of working with and resolving attachments. I wouldnt disagree with your statement on kundalini not being you or your choices, (although in my case its more obviously so) but one can use the disagreeable k sensations as a lever into a sense of one-ness is using something negative and possibly turning it into a super positive. As part my arguement is that there is no inherent seperate self, I am putting us into a logical box anyway. So you could say that they were your decisions and your kundalini, but at the same time there is no separate you to have decisions and kundalini. I chose the wanting to be rich example as this has been by far my biggest attachment and obstacle to the path. It was this fear based thing I have had my whole life, even as a child. Not all people have this issue, but I find alot of men are programmed to be the "success stories."

There are different paths and different stages of realization within paths, so there are no rules per se. Your #1 sounds like fundamentalism, which may be good for beginners so they don't go too far astray, but needs to be cast away asap.In #2, satisfaction from accomplishments is same as satisfaction from pleasures: you have to ferret out your "attachment" to it.You can do this by contemplating how you feel in the state of lack of the accomplishment: if you feel bad or restless, you have an attachment. That is to say there is an unconscious force leading you arround with an invisible carrot and stick. You should try to release those or they wont just go away because you do some cool qigong or go deep in meditation. There are many people on this forum I think would say that attachment is not an issue, and you should just enjoy whatever you want and that is the path. This could be true after you have released the majority of your negative gunk, issues, complexes, bad memories, unconscious triggers--but not before, or that is delusion. I think if you are starting to feel naturally blissful much of the day, really at ease even in daily negative trigger situations, that would show you have released much of the negative gunk. But even still, I would want to work to a deep somatic level, childhood programming level to see where ego attachments are. There is not much we are doing in terms of making cultivation progress that is not ego or small mind connected. Its about directing the ego or small mind in the right directions, that open up to vibrating at non-ego states (love, gratitude, wishing joy, etc.) To simply make meditation progress into subtle mind states and one pointed focus, one doesnt need to shed ego at all. Some people on this forum only want powers, or only want deep states, and be the same basic small minded person that they are now--its possible. Virtually everyone we communicate with in the world assumes a certain set of ego-based values, and we have to talk to them without getting all preachy about our own new aims and values, and often communication with others will let you see for yourself if you have actually changed, and let you know what you still have to work on.

I get your point, and its clear that Buddhists are very pacifist, with aims of utter self sacrifice mind of the Boddhisattva. But this is the mindset and you cannot expect a monk to pick up arms and kill, because that would be inconsistent. You can't expect them to make exceptions in their belief in karma and take off their robes etc. to fight and risk killing a soldier (their mother from a previous life), for that would be stupid in their point of view. The ideal or the big big picture is that the highly evolved individuals become the force of hegemony, the leaders of culture and not the followers, or get wallowed in the mire of the deluded . So they say, may all sentient beings be liberated from the mental turmoil and afflictions etc etc, obviously this includes humans of other national boundaries.

The monk or lamas story is a good example of compassion, or rather equanimity, because if he were to have gotten upset or fallen into self-pity, it would not have done any good. The Chinese invasion still would continue, the decision was over his head. It's not as though he would have "taught" the Chinese soldiers anything, or taught the other monks anything by getting angry etc. The overwhelming force of the "country karma" is apparent here. Another example of even more extreme compassion is a boddhisattva cutting off a limb to feed a starving animal, and that being as inconsequential as a leaf falling off a tree. Here we can see the boddhisattva feeling the pain of the animal, but having so much control over one's mind, that the self is not the body, and the animal is not felt as seperate from the boddhisattva's point of view. Some people have no control over their mind, they have no particular insight into the interconnectedness of all things, yet they act like doormats and think that they are being compassionate and gaining karma, for example to let the bully spouse win a fight. That is not true because karma has several parts, and intent is a big part. So if the intent was not really compassion or equanimity, but merely the intent to avoid upsetting the other, or fearful that they would get abandoned or lose favor. Therefore you must look deep into your own mind to see the real intent, you must see your complexes and early childhood programs as they affect you on a deep, extremely hard to notice level. You can google "spiritual bypass" for more on this topic.

Thanks for your input Antares. Its interesting how the Russians are similar to my thoughts on Yantra. I think the warmups are pretty similar to the Tibetan warmups I see on the youtube vids. But where a inner fire meditator might just go straight into inner fire meditation since its just bandhas and mind, the Yantra goes on an extended physical exercise journey similar to hatha but done a little too frenetically to be safe on the joints and tendons. On the other hand, my approach towards YY was complete faith when I was doing it, and certainly the physical workout you get is amazing, especially if you are able to keep a high level of concentration. I found myself picking and choosing from his yantra series sets and blending those with my other yogas. I checked out Tulku Lobsang's site and his overview tree of practice seems much more compact and makes sense intuitively. He seems like he would appeal to people who like physical workouts with their inner practices, for example his sword chod (looks cool) and the steps of yoga to tummo to bliss and to dzogchen are laid out without digression into some package tour of yoga. Have you practised anything of Lobsang?

I practiced the Norbu version of the Yantra yoga starting from summer from the DVDs, also another set of 8 (breathing, mudra, positions) exercises from Yuan Miao which is some Tantric yoga with some postures she claims to have been taught by deities called "yoga of joy". The unspoken goal of this joy yoga is to awaken the kundalini, and the 8 steps look all very mysterious to people used to hatha positions. Yantra yoga series is similar to hatha positions but its all moving pretty fast, and the breathing is very specific. Its not initially relaxing and not for beginners or unserious to yoga who are not well stretched out daily, but as you develop and internalize the movements, you can relax and focus, really like a martial art or taichi. The idea of this yoga is to develop towards tummo, as well as the usual physical benefits.This is why the breath is often being compressed in the lower belly, and you can see that in the first warm up set, which are alot of the cow face posture yantras and pushing the breath down as you swivel your upper body. Yantra yoga will never be popular because it's just not relaxing like hatha, and the energy effects are all over the map. Its more like an inner alchemy practice with a whole load of different pieces. This is the 8 warm ups, as you can see, would be good for tummo development.

Sorry, I need to define some terms so to make sense of where Adya's and most meditation teacher's "just let go of everything" is insufficient and confusing, and to address the OP. "Drifting" is letting go of the meditation and the object and just spacing out. Drifting sometimes leads you to deeper levels of consciousness but usually it does not. You may think that sometimes your mind is empty of chatter but the problem is that that chatter exists on subtler levels of mind and will eventually kick in stronger and stronger--even though you do not perceive it. Therefore, if you have no object of focus you may be deluding yourself about the effectiveness of the meditation. You may think you have some empty mind type of meditation going, but there's perhaps lots chattering away under your awareness. You can only bottle that chatter with one pointed focus. "Focusing the mind on the object" Clenching often thought of as bad, but it is a necessary evil until you have surpassed some samadhi states. When I say clenching, I just mean pay attention to the object in the lightest way, but there is still a mental activity needed so I call it clenching, because it somehow feels painful to even pay attention. If you don't pay attention to the object, you are just drifting. Often you can do a one-two punch, of a period of focus and a period of drifting. If you focus well you can drift longer and the chatter will stay subdued longer. "Going deeper into subtle mind" This is the reason of the practice because consciously attaining subtle mind states is the very definition of wisdom. It should be happening naturally if you are not clenching too much or drifting too much. Because meditation is defined as deep relaxation and you need that mental relaxation to go deeper into the subtle mind. So at the very least you need to relax your mind, and I just find it easier to relax the mind if the body is relaxed. This is because the subtle energies speed up and guide the mind deeper instead of the mind guiding the subtle energies deeper. So in the physical practice we do, we do it so the body can relax and the subtle energies can flow faster and better, therefore, can guide the mind to subtler states when we do one pointed focus practice. Ok, I dont like posting long posts because I still consider myself a debutante.

3 hours is a good time to aim for, I think it means that less than 30 is not going to bring much big league cultivation results. I'm about the laziest (lay on bed don't sit) and bliss loving meditator out there, so take my input with a grain of salt. Grasping or focus on the object (breath etc) is always present until you have attained some initial very deep levels of samadhi (check Nan Huai Chin for details on this). You can notice this grasping or clenching when you stop doing it and just drift without an object of focus, and the mind will feel free and good. Therefore you should not just let go of the object and just drift (except that thats what I always do because I'm lazy) because the object of focus is NEEDED to still the lower levels of mind. I am not talking about stilling the ordinary conscious chatter, but the stuff below that in the levels of unconcious mind. That is to say, there is much chatter going on in your mind that you are not aware of, but it can be stilled by one pointed conscious. That is why one pointed focus is called "wisdom" practice, because it allows you to step down the levels of subtle mind, where attaining conscious subtle mind IS wisdom. I read through Adya's book, and its a bit over-simplified for pros like us. He says that everything must be let go of. One must remember that the object should be maintained with great courage and intent, even as one feels one is going to fall asleep. Generally I stay at that level of just about falling asleep and drift, and its a kind of dangerous area of neverending unconscious bubbling of every experience or recorded event in the mind, but the reason I do so is because my qi or kundalini is extremely active at that point, so its like an energetic jacuzzi. Otherwise its stupidly parked there because there is no wisdom gained because the unconscious bubbling is a barrier to subtler states of mind. One can also point one's intention to go deeper in meditation. It sounds so simple and easy, but that's the easy way down. Finally I'd like to address the word "trance" In fact any five sense data, or mind object is already "trance" We are always in trance, we are perceiving the world in a trance. Just by slowing our brain waves is perhaps increasing the selectivity of the experience is still trance. Its trance trance trance, all the way to awakening of the pure state, which is reality.

Bump. This is tomorrow 28th at 7AM EST http://tsegyalgar.org/theteachings/webcastcalendar/worldwidetransmiss5/

Detoxes the entire body's subtle energy system. There are arms and legs are important gateways of prana (hands, feet) , and that prana is needed to support k's effort in full body detox. Energy gets pulled in when needed at a faster rate if you have those gates and channels open. Everything continues slowly and progressively, more opening, more prana, more clearing. Over the long term (far ahead), the skin, muscles, tendons, soften more like a youthful soft, losing that muscle perma-contracted look that body builders mistake for health.

Oh, I wasn't referring to you taomeow, just giving my interpretation of what often happens to me when sitting down to eat with non-vegetarians.

I find vegans or vegetarians are not preachy or nagging their holyer than thou views. What happens is usually somebody asks the vegetarian why they decided to become vegetarian, and then they give some reasons like I don't want to kill animals, health etc. But the fact that is some people are pretty locked onto their version of morality, their feelings of self-worth and ego tightly bound up in it, and suddenly this well-meaning vegetarian who is just innocently expressing him or herself: it feels to the meat eater that its knocking a brick out of their pyramid of values, challenging their equation, making them "guilty" of a crime that they had never felt very guilty for. So often the meat eater gets this gut churning of bad feelings, and then starts to challenge the vegetarian with arguements, except that most vegetarians are well versed on the arguements and stats, especially vegans. Nobody would get all that worried if a Hindu told you that you shouldn't eat cows because they are sacred. You don't get worried if a Muslim tells you pork is dirty. This is because they are culturally removed. But you may feel threatened if someone of your own culture tells you why they are vegetarian. Its not the vegetarian thats threatening, its your ego generated feelings. Vegetarians don't feel threatened by hamburger and steak house advertising on the media. It's filtered out, not even make it on the radar. If you feel secure in your meat eating, then a vegan should just be like a talking muppet to you. If you feel shaken by a vegetarian then you need to examine the data and do a cost-benefit analysis based on your beliefs in regards to killing animals for lunch.

Its rare to find someone deeply involved in spritual progress (in the methodical conscious approach as we TB's tend to be) and wanting to be in some kind of relationship, and even if so, the question of being in a relationship with such a person, might be answered with "why even bother?" And so generally speaking we are talking about a relationship with a non-cultivator, or some kind of layperson with some spiritual tendancies, but not really on the path. And although most people are into self-improvement in some form or another, its still likely based on a non-cultivation value system view. The primary objection as I see it is putting yourself in a place where you are actively narrowing down your empathy and love to one being, and that is opposite of putting yourself in that misery position of being alone and reaching for universal empathy. That crappy place of lonliness where nevertheless I have found I can generate quite alot of bliss, and a greater, more stable state of positive emotions, relying upon no one person as object. But if you narrow it down you are creating the emotions (karma) and need, dependence, you might be deluding yourself about your own emotional stability, as it could crumble if that pillar be removed. I would just like to ask those people who have relationships and partners, to explain to me what advantages or learnings, etc they get or gotten from them.

CT, were they married after they had reached a high level stage or all along their development?

What hasn't been mentioned is that you do not have to exchange one calorie dense food for another calorie dense food just because it has the relative same portion size on your plate. What you can do is cook a load of spinach or broccoli, your favorite fresh veg, etc instead, and even though it looks like alot and has way more nutrition. When I became vegetarian my vegetable portions became enormous. When I did the fruitarian diet for 6 months, the meal conception was even more liberated from the standard food pyramid, I was eating tons of fruit, many times more than an average person. The bottom line is that one doesnt really need to replace grains with anything stodgy or starchy, but it may a while for your mind and body to adjust to it.

I have a similar Ramana pic on my wall, as his intention was to teach with his eyes: outpouring of empathy for everything around. Before taking a walk, I glace at the pic and put myself in Ramana's perception. It can be a powerful practice. Also the eyes can be "opened" larger as channels of emitting energy, and this might make a difference in people's perception of the eyes, especially when you do a empathetic type of gaze. Not sure about the skin, interesting theory though. I once met a Lebanese guy who had amazing shining blue eyes, except he was clearly a tosser, and tried to insinuate that he was the second coming of Christ while drawing attention to his eyes. I suppose people had looked at him with interest all of his life, and some people just have a natural iconic spiritual look to them, and sometimes turn into con men of some sort.

I don't think one needs to get so abstract and muddled with eco-warrior sentiments about who ultimately we can point the finger at, carnivores or humanity in general. What I do is think, would I rather a chicken have to die so I can eat my lunch or can I do without and eat other stuff. Its an easy choice for me, all I have to do is imagine a chicken getting its head hacked off and I really don't want to happen.

He may give you some idea why you don't react so well to milk, also gives good idea about b12, etc.

Thanks Cat. I guess the choice is between relating to your partner as funnel for the divine, or just being free and relating to the world as divine. These two sound like pretty nice options, Think of the "why even bother" as if said by a comedian on stage with a funny expression, because here you have 2 cultivators that both would understand that a relationship might be equally as good as a non-reationship. And if you were to ask your typical Buddhist monastic, he would say, ooh you might find yourself spending your days very comfortable but lose track of the big picture. I've stayed away from relationships for 7 years due to kundalini expressing herself in weird ways in my body and mind, and then just grafted the "home leaver" type of point of view. But we bums are not practicing meditations 24/7, and the the world is full of diverse activities and distractions, relationships and hobbies, why should I hang onto the "no relationship" line as if it were a quite important basis to making progress. So I decided to see what other people's real experience had taught them.

The question is if cultivating bodhicitta is a waste of time because it is not the spontaneous bodhicitta of an enlightened being, or may lead one down roads where one is taken advantage of, or robbed. The answer is that bodhicitta is primarily an internal practice, its about clearing your own blockages from what stands between you and universal loving/compassion/empathy. You can practice bodhicitta generating just by walking in the park looking at the foliage and considering yourself in the greater scheme. Its not about creating hypothetical experiments about where you cannot practice compassion and empathy--that is only indicative of your own hindrance. Its not about following a simple rule like "must always give money to people who ask." Bodhicitta is what you carry in your own heart, but I would argue that there is a skillfulness we have to learn while we are in society. We cannot afford to be as dogmatic as a monk who owns nothing but his clothes, but we can practice bodhicitta nonetheless. We also like to talk about ideals such as perfect bodhicitta of a Buddha, and therefore ours is chopped liver? No, there are levels, there is an area where you can say relatively more or less like real bodhicitta. But if you don't practice you wouldnt know that there is this training ground, and that relatively impure bodhicitta still can accelerate one's path. That's why it is said bodhicitta is the quick path to enlightenment, and that's why monks are made to repeat all the compassion phrases and encouraged to feel them as well as repeat. If bodhicitta were not so important why even bother making all those statements, why make a bodhisattva vow at all if it is something automatically realized at awakening? Sometimes some things people say have only a little external meaning yet carry a force of inner message and its quite interesting when that is some kind of energetic-laced bodhicitta.

The pulling is your meditation deepening like deepening a trance, result is the qi energy accelerates its cycles around your body. The qi switches gears, like shifting gears on a car, that sudden. On the one hand the mind goes deeper, on the other hand the body gets the lift from the acceleration of energy, destabilizing your mind temporarily--hence your confusion. This is why it is said to "relax into higher energy." In time you will not bother with it, even though you may notice the little spikes. Many people notice an energy shift and come out of meditation, just in the same way as people often move or shift their minds and bodies due to unconsious energy shifts. The idea is not to fall prey to shifting energy, and keep relaxing and meditating, even if the mind gets slightly agitated.