Seeker of Wisdom

Great post! Self-improvement without guilt or conceit is a very tricky balance. We have to acknowledge our flaws and work at them, but without becoming a disheartened self-flagellator. Accepting who we are is necessary, yet we aren't cultivating in any real way unless we're also trying to improve ourselves. This looks like a catch-22, but it isn't. The key is a form of self-respect based on wisdom. "My flaws are Buddha-nature focused through the lens of delusion. Removing them and the underlying delusion is allowing deeper qualities to flower. I will take action to remove the unskillful habits and impulses that are holding me back". There are two main benefits to this mindset: 1) When we act unskillfully - not 'sinfully' -, we then regard the mental factors that led to the action as unskillful and try to remove them, rather than judging ourselves as unskilful. There can be regret without guilt. 2) We don't repress our negative impulses, instead we understand that they arise due to delusions, so we work on the delusions themselves. This is much more effective, and means we don't just shove our negative impulses deep into the mind where they fester. So, what could have been internal conflict becomes a process of breaking fetters, not because of a lofty standard we neurotically feel we must meet, but because we value ourselves enough to want to be free of them.

Agreed - someone with a good understanding of what their goals are, what paths lead to those goals, and what practices match those paths can select methods from different traditions according to the strengths of those traditions. As others have said, mixing too much leads to confusion and poor results. It is silly to pray to Jesus one minute and take refuge in the Three Jewels the next. I think there should be a clear commitment to one system, and others can be used as 'catalysts' to shore up the primary system's weak points. In my practice, I am a Buddhist with an emphasis on shamatha, but I use some things from Taoism and yoga to help with the chi side of cultivation, and accept good teachings on virtue wherever they come from.

Whatever your goal and rationale is in cultivation, this will be enormously, enormously helpful. Really cleaning out and balancing your mind is critical as a foundation for permanently breaking through all your dualistic delusions to Tao, rigpa, or whatever. And, as the mind drives the chi, if you purify your mind this way then your chi will purify and develop to extraordinary levels very naturally and effectively. http://www.amazon.com/The-Attention-Revolution-Unlocking-Focused/dp/0861712765/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389565210&sr=8-1&keywords=attention+revolution

A bag of apple seeds is not an orchard. Something that is latent, to be recognised rather than developed, may still need to be made manifest by trying. Bridges aren't made of iron ore, even though it's got iron in it.

Our ignorance prevents us from 'just being', and there's a lot of momentum behind it. If we try to just be, then we are still caught in a trap of trying to reach some state which is favoured by the dualistic mind. You'll see what I mean if you ask yourself what you want to get out of just being - you will have some reason. Making a decision to just be is at best a facsimile of the real deal, because that decision is itself part of the prison of effort. So I think we have to try, and use skilful effort, to break that chain. When we can just be, then we will, and no effort or decision will happen as there is nothing to get from it. Even when we do need to act, the action will be recognised as being in motion. We already just are, trying is itself being, but the fiddly bit is seeing the being that is there whether or not we are trying, rather than just conceptualising it. It's easy to talk about there being nothing to attain, but that's just talk for most people. Most of us need to provisionally take a path to destroy the path itself.

Sidenote - I sometimes do a particular number of things with a deliberate arbitrary reason, e.g '21 recitations = 7 for body, speech and mind', for symbolic effect, as in my use of mudra. This is different from the way a numerologist would do that, as for me it is just a symbolic ritual for generating a useful mindset - I know that really 20 recitations is 1 less powerful and 22 is 1 more powerful - while a numerologist would believe that 21 is objectively special and ignore the utter arbitrariness of using multiples of 7 and 'body, speech and mind' instead of '5 aggregates' or '23 maternal and paternal chromosomes'.

I gave you another perspective on dhyana mudra that you can apply by bearing in mind the harmony between yin and yang, skilful means and concentration that this mudra can represent, so that you bring these themes into meditation subconsciously. I have as much right to share my opinions on numerology as you do. You asked if it is important to stick to the right number, and my response was no. Do you only want people who believe in numerology to respond? If so, you are the one holding on to opinions because you are unwilling to even have to read differing ones! In life, people won't always agree with you. That should be the start of an open discussion on both sides, if there is any genuine interest in truth. I agree that numbers can have meaning, any mathematician could have reams to say about π or e. Mathematicians and physicists could prove that π can be used to express something about black holes, the shapes of flower petals, or whatever it may be. My disagreement with numerology, however, is the arbitrary way in which numerologists decide what a particular number signifies. Who decides that 36 is positive and yang? What is their reasoning? Is this reasoning based on objective things (like the relation between a black hole's mass and Scwartzchild radius) or arbitrary conceptions (like the planet Mars relating to war)? Do the arguments follow logically, or have they been shoehorned ("I need to bring the number 23 into this somehow to prove this - oh, I know, humans get 23 chromosomes from each parent!"), such that the numerologist would shuffle awkwardly if asked to explain their gaping non sequitur ("why human chromosomes?" "oh... because there are 46, 46÷2 parents=23 which proves my assertion, and obviously humans are central to the entire universe, more important than all other species including all the ET's there may be put together, so...")? Even if that side of things is proved beyond reasonable doubt, does 36 just correlate with positive yang, or is there a causal relationship such that if you do 36 of something that causes it to be more positive yang than 35 or 37 of the same thing? This requires sound reasoning too, and detail - are 36 grapes more positive yang than 12, or 19 - how far does the rule apply? I would be interested to see an argument from you for 36 being positive yang.

1) I don't know anything about any particular chi effects that mudra can have. From my perspective, mudras are more of a psychological thing due to symbolism. If you associate a mudra with something, and always meditate with that mudra, the mudra helps you get into the right mindset. I always just have my hands on my knees (drona mudra, I think), because it's a stable I'm-meditating-now kind of thing. The mudra you mention (dhyana mudra) is explained here: 2) There isn't anything inherently yin or yang about the number of times something is repeated, which is an arbitrary concept. It's all about mindset.

I started, more or less, at 15. I wasn't into cultivation or anything like that (atheist) but I wasn't a normal 15-year-old either. I've always been fairly introspective, and less materialistic than most, not massively bothered about money, sex, etc. So then at 15 I was pottering around on YouTube when I ran across a quite new-agey OBE meditation and gave it a go. No OBE resulted, but I felt very strong chi effects. What made the experience particularly significant for me was that I had been laughing, literally, at how stupid this stuff was only a second before, so no chance of a placebo. That instantly shattered my certainty about atheism. I got into the fluffy new-agey side of things, having rushed to get a new world view because feeling like I didn't know anything anymore was unsettling, but fortunately never full-on David Icke batshit. I kept my feet planted in reality enough to not get stuck in believing all that rainbow starchild indigo unicorn nonsense. If you're interested in my early days, my old posts on 'astralboobaby.net' under the name 'Light Shard' should still be available to giggle at. As I started doing some yoga and considering philosophy a bit more slowly and carefully, I gradually developed more sophisticated ideas broadly in line with Vedanta, though I never studied it or considered myself a Vedantin. After a year or so I got into a daily practice of Advanced Yoga Practices (don't recommend), which I practiced for around 18 months. By the end of this time I had slid far enough to Buddhism that I left that site, joined here, and replaced AYP with stuff like anapana sati. Before long, I was settled on Buddhism. I'm very glad I got into this stuff early. More time to progress, and more mouldable mind when you start young.

I can't believe this stuff is still so popular after 2012. There is no shift happening. The economy isn't crumbling because of unsettled energy in the solar plexus. Was there also a shift in the 30's that nobody noticed? Any global event can be seen as proof of a shift - but at no point in history did nothing happen! Thanks to the internet, more people have access to cultivation teachings, but progress is dependent on applying them, and only as fast as our own effort allows. No special intervention is going on to change that, and nothing even could.

I have no problems, so I'm not a suitable receiver, but I suggest that you make some of your volunteers a control group - by not actually treating them, so you can compare the treatment against the placebo effect - and have some kind of scale to record the improvements a bit more objectively.

No resolution for the whole year, but I'm trying to increase my discipline through 30 day trials. Today I finished restricting my internet use, and started daily sit-ups. I'll try to keep up a chain of trials like that, and at some point I may give retention another shot. A useful app for stuff like this is 'habit streak'.

Practice from Taoism: horse stance after my main meditation session, around 7mins most days. More or less depending on ability and willpower. Practices from yoga/Hinduism: sun salutation for 3mins and alternate nostril breathing for 5 mins, before my main meditation session. Practices from Buddhism: 1) The Chundi mantra, when I'm not doing something else. Sometimes with prostration. 2) Two meditation practices, both of the concentration/mental stability/quiescence variety - the idea is to develop a very pliant mind with relaxation, stability and vividness. i) 30mins mindfulness of breathing, basically concentrating on the tactile sensations at the nostrils as in The Attention Revolution by Alan Wallace. ii) 60mins resting the mind in it's natural state. This is concentration on the mind itself - watching whatever goes on in there and trying to not control it or make value judgements about it; when the mind seems silent, trying to focus enough to notice the subtle stuff going on under the surface. Eyes open to help stop conceiving of the mind as 'in here'. As in Stilling the Mind by the same guy.

I can understand why many people come to this conclusion. It seems to me that a big reason for this misunderstanding is imprecise translation of the first Noble Truth as 'life is suffering'. A more descriptive translation would be something like 'involuntary cyclic existence as a deluded sentient being is unsatisfactory', which is a bit of a mouthful but isn't so nihilistic. Aside from the obvious suffering from being compelled against your will to live in states that may not be particularly nice - just look at the world - samsara involves being deluded about the nature of things and therefore constantly looking for something to be a source of happiness. Considering that deeply, we see the positivity of Buddhism - you don't need something to make you happy, you can be content with what you already have. The sutras do call things like the skhandas, birth, childhood, adulthood, old age and death poisons, festering boils and so on quite a lot, and that seems on the surface to be advocating seeing life as unbearable. But let's look deeper. These comments are more highly concentrated in the Theravada texts, which aim at the attainment of nirvana - not being reborn, and due to a satisfaction with the inconceivable state of an arhat, not a hate for life. Very hyperbolic comments are used just as a crowbar to peel people off of samsara. They are a finger pointing to the moon. They are supposed to be contemplated actively - i.e. 'nirvana must be really good if this is so crap in comparison'. An arhat wouldn't actually think of the body as pus or consciousness as a deadly poison, they would simply prefer nirvana. Then, of course, Mahayana comes along and reveals that nirvana and samsara are both empty rather than a dichotomy, and prompts the bodhisattva to choose rebirths to help sentient beings without abiding in samsara or nirvana.

That's normal, nothing to be bothered about.

In Buddhism, devotional practice is not with the idea that some other being is so great, we are so lowly, and we should beg that being to swoop down and 'save' us from our evil nature. In prayer, prostration and so on, what is being venerated isn't the being/yidam, although if it is a real being we have respect. The real focus is on Buddha-nature, which is also our nature, although in us it is dormant due to the obscurations. It is not a low being sucking up to a high one, hoping for pity. It is more like a guy who's just joined a gym looking at the hench guys - or in the case of a yidam, imagining themselves muscular - and saying to himself, 'I can and will become strong!' There is no expectation of divine intervention. There is a meaningful self-respect here. Acknowledgement that we aren't there yet, some healthy willingness to face our flaws - but with the underlying conviction that our nature is at base free of these flaws, inspiration from respecting beings who have freed themselves - or from imagining ourselves as the yidam - and the determination to meet that potential. There is a difference between seeing a Lama (and ourselves) as fundamentally a Buddha, and currently a Buddha. The former is a healthy relationship of respect, based on a strong understanding of emptiness and Buddha-nature. The Lama's flaws are empty impositions on a deeper truth - as are ours. The latter is just ignoring all the flaws of another person, pure delusion. When prostrating, the downwards motion is a symbolic throwing of all our energy into the goal of enlightenment and the upwards motion is our conviction that we will achieve it and rise up from our sleep. When taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha; this isn't sucking up to outside forces hoping they will do the work for us. It is more like identifying a course that we can follow to get where we want to be, reinforcing our focus on reliable guides, paths and milestones so we are intent on what we are doing. Such is my simplistic understanding.

Keep cultivating, watch the layers of the onion peel off one at a time. Rather than putting yourself down for where you're at, take joy in steady improvement.

The sky swarming with angels wouldn't make people any more developed. We develop ourselves, and most of humanity is not cultivating.

[This post is specifically about enlightenment - other things we can stop seeking right now] The thing is, we must be pragmatic. The relation between Buddha-nature and our nature is like iron ore. The iron ore doesn't have to be changed in nature to be iron - it only needs the slag removed. In that sense, iron ore is fundamentally iron. But we don't build bridges out of iron ore! If we have a lasting unmediated realisation of Buddha-nature, resting in that is enough to complete the unraveling. However, we must follow some sort of dualistic path with dualistic goals to reach that point, otherwise we are sitting around saying 'I am a Buddha already!' and it is empty talk. If we try to just rest now, we are staring at iron ore and waiting for the iron to pop out. We get in a catch-22 mindgame of trying to be nondual by being averse to duality, which is just another dualistic attitude. So, I say that for now we should work on virtue, samadhi and insight. When we are truly ready to not seek, there will be no sense of distinction between seeking and not seeking. It just is. That level of 'practice' will arise organically at the right time, so if we try to do it we are just kidding ourselves. My 2 cents.

It's a comet. It won't affect anything, as any astronomer would predict. Some things are just mundane events with no deeper significance.

The egg. Something that was very close to being a chicken laid a chicken egg. Something that isn't a chicken can't itself become a chicken, but it can lay an egg with that last mutation that makes the hatchling a chicken.

Yeah, I just don't get why it's so difficult for people to use a little reason, think "claims that contradict all the prior evidence need strong evidence" and just use the same Google they found the article with to check the sources, research methods and so on. :/

If you are training to run a marathon, one mile isn't long enough - but, you might not be able to run really far on a regular basis when you start out. Running a mile every day isn't enough for marathon training, but it does make you fitter. That's when you run distances that are long enough. It's better to commit yourself to a manageable time every day, and increase it as you progress; than to try to do several hours every day, burn out, and be irregular in your practice. And there's still the option to do a mega session one day if you feel up for it. Stretch yourself, but don't try to touch the moon.

If this is possible, it would be from having access concentration by the practice of shamatha. That level of mental stability and clarity, with access to the resources of the substrate consciousness, transcends the normal limitations of the human brain. The best guides for this I've read are The Attention Revolution and Stilling the Mind by Alan Wallace - read the former first, the latter is more specific to one method and assumes detailed prior knowledge, whereas the former starts at the stage of a novice to meditation and introduces a range of methods. SwamiJ has a very nice translation and commentary of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: http://www.swamij.com/index-yoga-meditation-yoga-sutras.htm which is also helpful, though bear in mind that it mistakes the substrate consciousness for a Self. It gives methods for developing the sorts of siddhis you've mentioned, which you'll find interesting. Hope that helps.

If a decision has been made to not manipulate anything, that is still a kind of manipulation with a goal in mind. This whole pop-Zen thing is a catch-22: "I will release the ego's attempt to control things to get a result by attempting to not control things to get the result of liberation". Why are you trying to let go? Whatever your answer was, it was some form of grasping. See the problem? Release has to come from removing the delusions which are constricting you, and this takes effort. Zen is a path with serious discipline, as well as just allowing. Anapana sati is a major practice in Zen, and, while koans are primarily aimed at triggering satori, koan practice demands intense concentration. We need to provisionally do things to get particular results, until the delusions powering our attachment and aversion are dissolved at the root. Release is not something we DO, we develop samadhi so we can develop penetrating insight so that release HAPPENS.