Seeker of Wisdom
-
Content count
1,202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by Seeker of Wisdom
-
I'm not concerned right now - but realistically, if I had to walk to class either barefoot on broken glass or wearing shoes on a normal path, I know which I would choose. Seriously, if someone tried to stab you wouldn't you try to avoid the knife? If you don't eat for a day, don't you get hungry? If you burn yourself on a hot plate, isn't it unpleasant? Don't give a mystical response, please. Just straightforward 'yes' or 'no'.
-
Sorry for the forceful tone, but there seem to be a lot of people taking nondualist ideas in a way that just isn't balanced, that denies conventional reality rather than uniting conventional and ultimate, and these people seem to end up spouting meaningless slogans in a weird mystical tone. And no reason gets through at that point, they're in the clouds, in a wonderland where fire doesn't burn their body because [insert stock platitude about nondualism here]. And I don't want that to happen to you, because you seem like a decent guy. I don't want you to lose balance and become another one parroting 'dear ones... we are all one', and so on ad infinitum. How quickly that serene veneer drops when their concepts (which they insist aren't concepts) are challenged, though! Yes, you can't find an ultimate barrier between 'self' and 'other', everything is an interplay of dependently originated empty phenomena as in Indra's Net. And if you have direct experience of this you are well ahead of me, I freely admit I'm too intellectual about all this... but in conventional life, the concept of 'I am walking on a bridge' is still valid, the concept of 'that is legally your property so if I get in your car and drive off I have committed a crime' is useful. The concept is a useful tool, it's only a problem if it uses us, rather than the other way round.
-
I'm not. Play pens don't have famine or poverty. In that case words like 'we' and 'everyone else' are meaningless anyway, and if forms are 'illusions', isn't fire still hot and ice still cold? So what is the value of this philosophy? Not really a feasible economic system, is it? Do you actually live your life based on this philosophy, really? I think you need to immerse yourself in mundane reality for a while, forget about these slogans, you sound like you're on acid - no offence.
-
IMHO the best book you could get is 'The Attention Revolution' by Alan Wallace. The practice there will give you solid fundamentals for absolutely any path. There's a lot there on anapanasati, with slight adjustments in the practice as you make progress.
-
I think this is a strong argument that deserves to be repeated and looked at closely. If a system of cultivation states 'problem A is caused by factor B, factor B is cured by factor C, factor C can be developed by technique D', and people with problem A apply technique D and it works, that supports the claims of that system and related systems. Especially when rigorous research such as MRI research is carried out. If that system of cultivation were fundamentally deluded by being 'spiritual', how would the methods based on its theories produce reliable results? If a practice works, the theory behind it must be valid. According to mainstream psychology, prolonged solitary confinement drives people mad - so how can cultivation practices allow people to thrive in decades of solitary retreat with no distractions, unless these practices are based on solid insights? If the people who taught practical things about mental development that science hasn't even touched yet also made ideas like rebirth fundamental parts of their teaching, it suggests to me that those ideas can be experientally discovered through the practice of such cultivation, and can't just be brushed aside by 'these incredibly perceptive people were also a bit nuts'. Of course that doesn't mean just accepting things like rebirth, let alone all the crazy stuff that gets added on by superstitious people over centuries... but my attitude is one of 'take this, it works, see where it leads'. So many highly sane people are having experiences that fit in the frameworks of cultivation traditions better than they do in mainstream psychology or other sciences. If these traditions are right to that extent, they must be right about other things. How were these discoveries made without any scientific research if there is no 'spiritual' gnosis to be had there - highly intricate lucky guesses?
-
Does a description of neurotransmitter activity capture the emotion it's associated with? Knowing the physical correlates of an emotion doesn't imply having any knowledge whatsoever of the emotion itself as it occurs in the mind.
-
I understand the American college system forces students to take classes irrelevant for them - yeah, I guess a student of medicine shouldn't be forced to read poetry on the side. I don't know how this works in American high school, but over here if we do A-levels too we can do whatever we want - I don't think someone at that age should be forced to do humanities if only science is clearly their thing, either. But earlier than that, teaching humanities is very valuable for society. Research shows that reading novels increases empathy (valuable for cultivators too, eh?). Exposing kids to other views and lifestyles and having them debate an author's ideas is an exercise in critical thought, eloquence, empathy and rhetoric. These are transferable skills. You can get bare logic from coding, but that isn't good practice for moral dilemmas, life decisions or human interaction. I'm studying English, I meet a lot of other English students who hate science and a lot of science students who hate humanities. Personally I like both. Society wouldn't work as it does without the sciences, but without culture, what would you do all day? The humanities have an aesthetic and cultural value. There are plently of jobs based on humanities, too. While the world could function without these, it would be a bit bland if it did. Science made your TV - humanities made the shows.
-
Just remembered two tips from Alan Wallace: 1) 'Season the day' - do little bits of practice when you can. There's probably a lot of points in a day you can take a little chunk of time, like using the restroom you can get sit and meditate for a couple minutes. 2) Borrow the idea of the sabbath - maybe one day a week or fortnight or something, you have time to do a bit extra practice.
-
You can always find ways to scrounge time for focused practice, but also don't forget that cultivation can be included in whatever you're doing anyway - acting mindfully, mantras, cultivating compassion, etc, can be done in the background. Otherwise there's a lot of missed practice opportunities, and cultivation can feel a bit mechanistic if it's something you do for a set time, alone, in a set place, with no link to your life.
-
Frequently having wet dreams, really need your advice
Seeker of Wisdom replied to moodlover's topic in General Discussion
The real problem is your addiction to porn. You can choose to stop that - you can't choose whether or not to have wet dreams, and wet dreams are harmless, so don't worry about those. -
Archbishop of Canterbury 'doubts God exists'
Seeker of Wisdom replied to Nikolai1's topic in General Discussion
Sadly blind faith gives no answers, while genuine Christian cultivation probably does. The attitude in the UK seems to be 'you can be religious if you must, but experience anything and you're nuts'. The AoC seems decent and honest, I hope he finds something that works for him. -
Unfortunately, Malcolm has a point IMHO. Some recent discussion on TTB is people trying to reinterpret Buddhism in light of what they want it to be because of misunderstanding some quotes. I encourage having your own ideas, and people are welcome to openly disagree with Buddhism, but when they say: "most Buddhists think X, but actually [insert Buddhist text] says Y [when it actually says nothing of the sort] so all you Buddhists who believe X are wrong, fortunately I'm here to educate you about your own system"; it's arrogant, patronising and just sad really. Then they don't read the responses and say: "oh, so the Buddhist view is X after all and I misinterpreted that text as saying Y. Personally I think Y because..." Instead they keep insisting that they understand Buddhist material better than all the Buddhists do... or even insist that they are actually Buddhist and the only one who gets the real meaning! Very strange really.
-
Arousal vs Relaxation Study. How did rigpa fare?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to Tibetan_Ice's topic in Buddhist Discussion
I'm pretty sure it's a standard statement in Dzogchen that the meditation is resting in the view, i.e. resting in rigpa. -
Skilful means is about adapting teaching to help different people. A genuine master will occasionally use the stick, but they also have many other tools. Deci has nothing but the stick. If the so-called teaching style is constantly abusive for the sake of being antisocial while feeling righteous about it, that indicates that it is just ordinary harsh speech masquerading as skilful means or crazy wisdom. Also, the vocabulary is just cultivator's techno-babble saying 'listen to me, you can't understand because you're inferior'. It has no teaching purpose at all. For example: Could be rewritten as: I think Deci has something real because glimmers shine through her writing occasionally, but is hardly a master. She should not get a free pass from the forum rules because she claims it's skilful means or crazy wisdom. Any cult leader can say that.
-
Mindful breathing: controlled or not? Taoist, Buddhist, Anapanasati, Embryonic
Seeker of Wisdom replied to Satya's topic in General Discussion
You can be mindful while choosing to breathe a certain way, though because there's more mental activity that won't lead into samadhi. It could be good for vipashyana if you want to probe into the nature of intention, that would be a deep meditation. -
I started recently myself, really recommend 'Daoist Nei Gong' by Damo Mitchell.
-
Dalai Lama says no need for successor
Seeker of Wisdom replied to BaguaKicksAss's topic in General Discussion
HHDL long life prayer: -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Great stuff. Steve, what do you make of Master Hongzhi choosing the word 'aggressiveness' here? I would have expected something like 'concepts' or 'grasping'. Perhaps he meant a subtle sort of tension? -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
IMHO - if someone only sees the 'clarity' side and considers it eternal, substantial, unchanging essence, source of everything, (traditional traits of Brahman as an 'ontological absolute') that is partial. If someone only sees the 'emptiness' side, everything being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance, that is partial. If someone sees both as united, reality being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance in which minds are by principle fundamentally enlightened, that is complete. The way Brahman is usually described seems to me to lean towards 'clarity only', whereas Dzogchen makes a big point of going straight for 'clarity and emptiness', avoiding a slant towards one alone. Though obviously someone might use the word 'Brahman' without any idea of ontological absolute, since Brahman is generally portrayed that way while Dzogchen emphatically disagrees with that as described in earlier posts, I consider Brahman and Dzogchen to correspond, but not to be the same. -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
I get what you're saying, and I don't want to be stuck in concepts more than anyone else. But this discussion is about whether or not Brahman and Dzogchen are the same. Am I not allowed to give any view on the matter if I happen to think they aren't the same? I suspect that if I had given intellectual arguments for them being the same, nobody would have complained about me stating 'absolute conceptual information' that there is no difference. Does the ban on concepts and absolutist statements only apply to people who disagree with you? Also, how could I respond to this thread without using concepts anyway? That's how language works. We are all using concepts here to explain our opinions. I'm not sure where the 'power to "forbid" this and that' statement is coming from, either, but I suspect it's also coming from resistance to opposing views. Of course there is correspondence, I'm not 'forbidding' stating that. I am not trying to 'forbid' anyone saying anything. But Dzogchen and Brahman are still different IMHO, not identical. In my posts on this thread I think I've managed to take views that differ from mine seriously, consider them, and respond appropriately. In return you have seemingly accused me of 'forbidding' you to say your opinion, and stefos has implied that I am arrogant, and told me to 'be honest' and 'not B.S. me'. ¿Que? -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Stefos, shunya doesn't refer to a 'void' as in a particular essence or function or basis of things. Something that is vivid, dynamic, full of properties is still empty, because 'empty' means 'lacking independent existence' not 'lacking qualities'. Dzogchen and Brahman are different ideas, because Buddhist emptiness contradicts the idea of an ontological absolute, which is what Brahman is. In Buddhism there is no fundamental ground of existence. -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Like Steve said, there's the 'clarity' side and the 'emptiness' side, and these are complementary. What I've been saying here in a nutshell is that the 'clarity' statements have to be seen as not contradicting emptiness, to get the full flavour of the Buddhist view - terms that could easily be taken as pointers to an idea of an ontological absolute (which is mutually exclusive to emptiness teachings), taken instead as references to the sheer, vivid, dynamic potential of empty phenomena. Sort of dialectically resolving 'clarity' and 'emptiness' into harmony instead of conflict, enriching both of them, an interplay of yin and yang. This shatters realism and nihilism, and prevents grasping onto intellectual views. To take that word 'unborn' as an example again. What does this mean considered in a way in accord with emptiness? That rules out 'without a beginning' in the way we would instinctively think. Is it subtler than that, straddling clarity and emptiness, presenting a vivid reality in which a 'beginning' cannot be grasped because of emptiness? Or is it just trying to poetically point towards an ineffable experience, rather than saying anything at all about origins or lack thereof in the first place? Or is it just a sword attacking intellectual certainty, preventing people from clinging to ideas of emptiness? I don't truly know - maybe that's the point. The 'emptiness' stuff doesn't struggle against the 'clarity' stuff. They actually dance together, so fast you can't tell one from the other. -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Interesting analysis of references to Buddha-nature which seem to contradict emptiness as looking at emptiness from a positive perspective (bold mine): -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
Why are you trying to teach Buddhists about Buddhism? Buddhism doesn't propose an ontological absolute. That is the Buddhist position on the matter, based on all the teachings - not just a few cherry-picked misinterpreted quotes. Of course the actual experience is beyond all this intellectual thought... but for the sake of being able to talk about it, Buddhism describes all things as empty, while Vedanta describes Brahman as an ontological absolute, and these descriptions are mutually exclusive. The experience doesn't fit in any description, but these descriptions are still pointing at two different things. -
Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?
Seeker of Wisdom replied to stefos's topic in Buddhist Discussion
'Unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed' are terms often used in relation to emptiness in Buddhism - as in, not truly born because not truly substantial in the first place. It's easy to pick out a few phrases from tradition X and interpret them in light of tradition Y in a way that practitioners of tradition X who know the tradition X view wouldn't (and vice versa). Very easy to make this mistake with Buddha-nature. Teachings on this apparently contradicting emptiness, which actually just speaks poetically to try to point at the ineffable, have to be seen in light of the consistent theme of emptiness expressed in the sutras for everything to fit together. They are different sides of the same coin as emptiness teachings, expressed in different ways. There only appears to be contradiction if this isn't recognised. Anyway, so long as a person is experiencing enlightenment, with no grasping onto any thing, idea or principle as refied or nihilistic, or any other dualistic extreme, the words they refer to it with don't matter. A Buddhist who experiences the jhana of nothingness and thinks it's nirvana and a Vedantin who experiences the jhana of infinite consciousness and thinks it's Brahman are both equally deluded.
