Seeker of Wisdom

Meditation, particularly mindfulness of breathing and cultivating compassion, can be very helpful, but if you can't relax in the first place then progress will be difficult. Also, it is easier to be relaxed in a room away from everything than in the middle of life. Stress tends to be related to feeling out of control, or feeling the need to keep control. But if you can control something stress is useless, and if you can't then stress doesn't change that. Stress is a habit based on fear of losing the imaginary status of 'controller'. It's important to see things as they are to undermine that delusion. Look clearly - in experience, not logic - at what you can control, what you can influence and what you just have to let be. Discern the sequence of events involved in actions: event, perception, recognition, feeling, evaluation, desire, intention, action; and see what you learn from that. The more you accept the truth of control, the more you will live with a natural flow of responses to situations and the more peace you will have. In turn, as there is direct experience of peace being more pleasant and useful than stress, the less the mind inclines to stress. And that's the point when meditation begins to start a positive feedback loop of relaxation.

You have to cultivate, or the same habitual patterns and delusions just keep spinning round. But... Is there really a difference between 'spiritual' and 'mundane'? What is there to find?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Chang has the abilities he claims to have (I am not interested in seeing the video yet again btw). All that shows about mopai is that it results in those abilities. It says nothing about the accuracy of Chang's other views, it says nothing about whether or not mopai ends rebirth, it says nothing about whether or not there may be other systems that produce different abilities or none, which end rebirth anyway. You're extrapolating way too far. If someone claims to be able to do X, Y and Z, and then they do X, that proves only that they can do X. They may be bullshitting or mistaken about Y and Z. There may be others who can do Y and Z but not X. There may be others who followed a different way to achieve X, Y and Z.

IMHO both of those approaches are flawed for long-term serious cultivation, though both are better than nothing. The former is too forceful, deliberately suppressing anything creates internal conflict that ultimately has to be revolved. The latter is trying to do two things at once - the mind can't really be focusing at the same time as wandering. Here's a different classifaction: *Concentrative - focusing on one particular thing, and whenever there's distraction just maintaining a focus on the object until the distraction naturally passes. *Nondirective - open awareness to input from a particular sense, or all senses, without attachment or aversion to, or trying to control, whatever happens to arise. Both of these could be split into subtypes of whether the meditation is aimed at developing concentration (shamatha), insight (vipashyana), energy work, cultivation of virtues, and combinations of those. I say 'aimed at developing' rather than just 'developing' because working on one aspect of cultivation will overflow into improving others. I take a more concentrative approach in mindfulness of breathing and a more nondirective approach in resting the mind in its natural state (observing whatever happens in the mind, without influencing it), in both cases practising as shamatha methods. Both approaches are complementary, getting to the same place from different angles. It's important when using the nondirective approach to actually be precisely aware of what is going on, like someone watching a crowd walk past with interest, rather than just daydreaming and zoning out, like someone in a car watching road markings zip by in a trance. There's a big difference between open shining awareness and wallowing in a peaceful sluggishness. Anyhow, good article. Interesting how in both cases similar parts of the brain are lighting up. IME concentrative trains the mind to be still, while in nondirective the motion winds down by itself.

Well, that depends what you mean by 'meditation'. For basic levels of concentration/mindfulness, for vipashyana, for energy work, for cultivating virtues like compassion - I agree with you. These can be practiced while walking, cooking, whatever. For shamatha, cultivating samadhi, the aim is to enter states where your psyche dissolves into the substrate consciousness. The senses completely shut down, no extraneous thoughts or emotions... even just taking a step requires a subconscious and conscious mind for volition, coordination of muscles and sensory input. Practising shamatha while walking may be useful at times, but it's ultimately antithetical to the practice. Shamatha is intrinsically a practice for set periods with nothing else, but I completely agree with the importance of not separating cultivation from the rest of life.

Cool! When I first got into cultivation I practiced NEW, then I tried other stuff, and now I'm back to it. I don't know what made me leave it. Robert Bruce would probably consider that a strong surge of energy, but not kundalini. Have you seen his collected posts on kundalini? Here: http://www.saltcube.com/files/RobertBruce_PostsOnKundalini_2004.pdf

Everything can and should be woven into cultivation, but, if you want to go deep, you do need periods to just practice without anything else going on at the same time. Especially when it comes to things like training concentration.

This body is not 'me' or 'mine', nor is this mind. And yet, it's nonsense to say 'I don't exist' or 'this isn't my body'. Consider a house. 'House' is just a label applied to when bricks, mortar, wood and slate are arranged in a particular configuration. Thus, the house lacks a substantial essence (it's empty, refuting realism) as it's just a label which we choose to apply to a set of things. The house is still there though (refuting nihilism), because you can experience its properties and functions. The label is conventionally valid. Similarly, 'I' am just a bunch of mental and physical processes, nowhere in this is there something that can really be grasped on to as 'me'. But I can be conventionally distinguished as 'me' - rather than 'you' or 'willow tree' - on the basis of any number of things - my personality traits, appearance, and so on. Why is this in off topic?

Well put. I think it is important in discussion of things like this to emphasise the part of your post I put in bold. Sometimes people hear advanced teachings and think that they don't need to do anything (which is true in a deep sense) but apply this profound truth wrongly, by just wallowing in their ordinary views and habits. Someone who has recognised their primordial enlightened nature does nothing, but this wu wei is clearly different from the way a normal person does nothing lying on the beach on vacation.

If you experience something and then it ends, it wasn't enlightenment. It was a profound mental state, like a satori. You can have experiences that transcend duality and all conceptual frameworks, but they are still conditioned phenomena. Simply because something is so profound that you instinctively grasp on to it as enlightenment, and can't imagine how there could be anything greater, doesn't mean that it really was enlightenment. There is a big difference between stepping out of Plato's cave and exploring the entire world beyond.

These statements are ultimately true, however we need to be practical. You can't just sit around and expect to be enlightened. Meditation is a contrived state. However, that doesn't mean it isn't useful or even necessary. All states except enlightenment are contrived. This means the only way to enlightenment is by ending our contrived states. And the only thing we have to work with is contrived states! So we seem to have a catch-22. How can we end contrived states using contrived states? Here's one possible route: 1) End the contrived state of distraction with the contrived practice of shamatha so that you can perceive clearly for the next step. 2) End the contrived state of delusion with the contrived practice of vipashyana. Contrived practice is like a stick used to start a fire: all the other sticks burn, and then it burns in the fire itself. So the contrived practice and the insight destroy delusion, then in the end they self-destruct, leaving only uncontrived enlightenment.

I am not disagreeing with any of that. My point is that if someone fixates on energy that is attachment to form, and liberation requires no clinging to any phenomena. Meaning in the end, cultivation itself needs to be dropped. If someone thinks that enlightenment is having a perfectly developed energy body, they are taking a mechanistic view of the unconditioned and non conceptual. It's not so different from saying having great abs makes you enlightened. If someone is only enlightened so long as their energy body is functioning in a particular way, that is not enlightenment because it depends on temporary phenomena. Saying that energy development will happen along the way, and that doing things to actively promote it helps, is more accurate. The same principles also apply to virtue, concentration and wisdom... someone could be a highly developed being with profound compassion, samadhi and insight, but if they are still clinging to their views and attainments they may have no realisation and still be firmly lodged in samsara. The greatest wisdom destroys wisdom itself. The most noble being in samsara is a pile of bones and thoughts. Someone can have raised k without being enlightened, but an enlightened person will have raised k along the way whether or not they sought it.

Absolutely agreed. However, only working on the energetic side cannot provide fully-rounded mental development - it's still within the bounds of samsara.

According to Robert Bruce, kundalini is only activated once, but active is different from raised, as after k rises it descends, and so can be raised again. He says that the energy body is more developed the more times k is raised. I don't know how much of what he says and teaches I agree with, but when it comes to k, the guy seems to have a lot of experience (which many of the 'teachers' out there lack). I can't give any real insight into k as I haven't raised it myself, but I see such matters as only a part of a much bigger picture of cultivation. Someone could spend decades working on their chi and k and what-not and make no serious progress to enlightenment. Kundalini can only do so much if the depths of the mind hold onto false perceptual filters (or, I guess, any perceptual filters). The real deal for me is virtue, concentration and insight. Those three trainings are what really purify the mind, uproot delusion and result in liberation. All the stuff about chi and k is valuable only to the extent that it is applied to supporting those, IMHO. And doing those will automatically result in chi unblocking, k naturally rising, with no effort on the energy side of things.

Have you ever tried https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=PVpVU-eUD8Gs7QaVqoDYBw&url=http://www.divinetruth.com/PDF/People/Other/Robert%2520Bruce%2520-%2520New%2520Energy%2520Ways.pdf&cd=3&ved=0CDIQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFqbvMMDCLSrRrhuZeelJcZpWyk1g&sig2=a4a925TzF2yZ-un4hqq_uw ? Try directing energy down your legs, or up your central channel. I'm no expert at all, this may not help, but give it a quick go and report back.

Memory is storing knowledge in the mind, if the plant remembers 'that doesn't harm me so I don't need to close'. Memory implies conscious awareness of things and storing that information for later. This is IMHO just automatic biochemical processes. With repeated stimulation, receptors becoming desensitised. Similarly, plants grow towards light not because they are aware of it, but because the growth factors concentrate on the darker side of the stem so that side grows faster, curving the stem towards light sources.

Reality is the emptiness...THAT is the basis... and these phenomena have no essence. Looks pretty clear to me. The basis is emptiness, and so phenomena are empty. The basis is the one taste of emptiness and luminosity of all phenomena. It is not an underlying substantial essence.

Interesting, but it doesn't actually show consciousness or memory IMO. It's more likely a mechanistic habituation process. The plant isn't conscious of anything or learning anything, it's automatic responses. Of course, as people, when we see these things we immediately think of things like memory because that's what we know. It's like when someone lives with the same smell around them and eventually they stop smelling it - that's not because of learning or memory, it's an automatic physiological process. My theory: The chemical messengers automatically released in response to damage trigger a feedback loop to the pressure receptors affected by a particular stimulus, lowering the threshold for a response to that stimulus. Since a drop of water doesn't cause damage, that feedback loop isn't triggered so the threshold for a response is raised, eventually meaning that there is no response to that repeated harmless stimulus.

This commentary on the Uttara Tantra really helped me get an idea of how emptiness and Buddha-nature fit together: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=eDNSU5aBNInDO-TzgcAP&url=http://siddharthasintent.org/community/pdf/UttaratantraDJKR.pdf&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNEXLYODsHEHEDE9IJGs6-MHTRGcWg&sig2=UoNgSJezW6qujxwdZZo9Kw You see, the basis is empty because it is not a thing in itself, it is simply a property inherent to mind. The basis is to mind as light is to fire, it is not an ontological absolute. Mind is fundamentally empty and luminous, i.e. the basis. The basis is 'permanent' as it always 'exists' so long as mind does, despite the mind constantly changing. It is 'neither one nor many' as one fire only emits its own light, but all light is qualitatively identical. What it 'creates' isn't the external universe, but rather samsara or nirvana as experienced by each individual mindstream, like how the fire can be different colours but must emit light.

A good practice is a good practice. Just keep going, and let views grow out of your experience. Truth can never be captured in conceptual, dualistic boundaries anyway. ANY teaching can only ever be a pointer to the actual reality, which cannot be taught.

So long as you are always willing to change your view, and do some sort of practice you will wind up heading towards truth. I was an atheist, then I sort of had an OBE. That led to a confusing year or so before I ended up with Buddhism. My view shifted until it seemed right for me to take that tradition as my foundation. Do spiritual practice first and foremost, only choose a tradition when it's main points simply are the way you see things. It shouldn't actually feel like a choice, it should feel like 'I agree with so much of this it would be silly to not go with it'. Even then, don't think 'I'm X now so I have to accept...'. Separate truth from superstition and things said to fit in with the culture. I remember listening to a talk by Alan Wallace saying about how when he was a Buddhist monk he wanted to try yoga. He asked his teacher if that was OK because yoga is Hindu, and his teacher laughed, saying, 'Alan, if you do that it will be Buddhist yoga!'. So Alan went and learned yoga in a Hindu temple while lodging in a Christian centre! Only the (exoteric forms of the) Abrahamic religions say that other ways lead to damnation. Other traditions often encourage using whatever's helpful. However, bear in mind that different traditions aren't identical. You can't say that (exoteric) Christianity leads to the same place as Taoism, because the underlying philosophy and practice is very different. Some traditions posit a God, some an impersonal absolute such as Brahman, and others such as Buddhism have no absolute at all. People of all those views could practice Bhakti, but would have to adapt it skilfully to suit their aims. Bernadette Roberts started practising Bhakti with the first view, and progressed through to the second with shifts in the way she practiced: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/.

Well, clearly the primordial state is being anthropomorphised as the 'creator' of samsara and nirvana. It's the same symbolism as in the all-creating king tantra.

Your post is certainly leading in a good direction. Here are some things to consider. *What Spotless said. *Even an enlightened being has to use mundane thought and mental function, or they would be unable to get dressed or communicate. Perhaps think in terms of relative truth and absolute truth, remembering that one is not superior or separate to the other. We need the former to get stuff done and the latter to be enlightened. *You believe that everything is an expression of a fundamental basis (ontological absolute) of some kind, which you call God, as per your analogy of the ocean and waves. Here's a little armchair philosophy. i) If an absolute has multiple properties in itself, then it is not one thing, as it has parts. But - like a house which doesn't exist apart from the bricks - it would then itself be an expression of other things, not an absolute. Also, things produced from different aspects of it would be at least partially separate. Hence, your ocean analogy is false. ii) If an absolute has only one property in itself, then it can only produce things identical to itself, as there is no other material to work with. Therefore, it couldn't produce a universe filled with cool stuff. Hence, again, your ocean analogy is false and there is no absolute. My reasoning may easily be wrong, though still, it's something to think about. People tend to think in black-and-white terms of either atheism is true or there is an absolute, and that things are either separate or nondual. However, the Truth may be in the shades of grey of spirituality without an absolute and things being separate but interconnected and 'of one taste'.

LOA = law of attraction, 'The Secret'. Making your hypothesis unfalsifiable. No matter what happens, you will never accept proof that more than belief is needed to make someone able to fly - you will just claim there's still a bit of subconscious doubt stopping them. You can always do that, no matter what, and there's no way to test it. Have you put any thought into critically considering your beliefs? Consider colour-blind people. Often they don't realise they're colour-blind, until they don't see a precise pattern in precisely coloured shapes that someone else does and points out to them. This may not happen for years. They would believe that they weren't colour-blind until then, as they had no way of realising it themselves. Believing you aren't colour-blind is the default position, there is no innate concept of such a thing as colour-blindness. So if beliefs are as powerful as you claim, how can anyone ever actually be colour-blind? And if beliefs aren't powerful enough to simply adjust some cone cells, how could they alone make a whole body defy gravity? I'm not sure why you take such a black and white stance of either i) we can do anything if we believe we can or ii) we are powerless. We are in control of what we are able to be in control of. Implication - perhaps developed people can fly, teleport, etc. But my stance is that such abilities, if they are true, do not come about solely through believing that you have them. There is a difference between person X with high development able to fly and knowing that they can because they've done it and person Y with mental problems believing they can because they're delusional. If you cannot control something, acceptance is a better option than false hope. If you are falling off a skyscraper, what are you really going to do about it, really? Accepting what you can't control means you can constructively deal with expected and unexpected issues - for example, sorting out your will and life insurance rather than telling yourself you won't die.

Actually if you turned off the strong nuclear force in your body, your subatomic particles would zip apart as nothing would be holding them together. I'm not saying things like walking through walls are absolutely definitely impossible. They may be child's play at high stages of realisation. But be sceptical! This 'if you believe it will happen' LOA stuff is just not true. Why do schizophrenics who truly believe they can fly not fly if this is true? In our current state, there are things we can't do! Your points about changing things like homelessness are wise points though.