Seeker of Wisdom

Shamatha leads to a pliable mind. That's necessary to permanently uproot the hindrances - otherwise you can't perceive the delusion and clinging fully, you are only working with the small conceptual conscious mind. That's why I don't think you can just go straight to liberation. You need access to all of your mind first. The roots of the prison are in the substrate consciousness, so we need to be able to work on that level. This is a universally acknowledged principle. Shamatha may be a Buddhist term, but the actual practice predates and goes far beyond Buddhism. It's in Hinduism, occultism, esoteric Christianity, Taoism, Sufism... You're right, many who achieve shamatha do get stuck on it. It's important to not stop there. But I don't think that's a reason to not start. It's also important to get there. Imagine if Jimi Hendrix never wanted to tune his guitar.

There's a Tibetan saying about this: "there are many profound practices and few profound practitioners". In part, the issue is arrogance. Fundamental practices that don't lead to liberation in their own right are seen as somehow beneath us, we want to do the liberating ones. The mundane work of critically looking at our behaviour - 'well even X and Y do that' - here sectarian arrogance gets in the way. The other part of the issue is ignorance, specifically confusing conventional and absolute truth. People hear about how we are already enlightened and just need to realise it, and completely deny that right now, on the conventional level, we aren't enlightened and there are stages of progression to go through. The classic example here is one I'm always banging on about - mental stability/shamatha/samadhi. The untrained mind alternates between restlessness and torpor, and most of it is out of our reach in the subconscious. How can we leave behind our delusion if we cannot access most of our minds, or probe into our experience with any serious clarity? This idea of not needing to do any fundamentals or follow along any paths seems like a mind-game to me. It's with the realisation of emptiness that advanced non-conceptual practice is a feasible approach, since before that trying to be non-conceptual is only a conceptual aversion to concepts, a catch-22 situation. Isn't the concept that concepts need to be dropped itself a concept? Isn't deliberately following no path, because they are all 'like cleaning a prison cell', itself a dualistically chosen and deliberately followed path? We need to work on virtue, so that we can develop reliable mental stability, so that we can develop a lasting realisation of emptiness.

Exactly.

Whether I am a practitioner of Buddhadharma or not is a different issue than whether or not I am a practitioner of Vajrayana, unless you are enough of a sectarian to think that only Vajrayana is valid Buddhism. Besides, if I practiced Vajrayana I wouldn't talk about it publicly, so you would never know unless I decided to PM you, as a Vajrayana practitioner, to discuss it. I do Buddhist practice, try to live by Buddhist principles, study Buddhism... please tell what I have to do to demonstrate that I am a practitioner of Buddhadharma and understand the basics. Perhaps you are conflating Dharma with your own tightly held concepts and pretensions. Perhaps you find it hard to believe that someone can be a Buddhist without trumpeting their practice and knowledge of it as a character trait they are extremely proud of. Someone who can barely name any of the 37 factors but still does their best to follow them in their heart is a higher practitioner in my eyes than someone like you - a classic 'internet Buddhist' who thinks that they are great practitioners because they have memorised loads of words. All your study is nothing, because - judging by the way you speak to people - Dharma is just an intellectual game for you, not something you truly practice apart from mechanical ritual. You spit on the Dharma with nearly everything you say about it, and the way you say it, regardless of whether what you are saying is correct or not. Go back to the basics yourself, and try some Right Speech.

Why do Buddhist threads so often lead to RF and S_J starting unnecessary 'debates' based on ad hominems? For effs sake, guys, is it not possible to suggest ideas and have a productive debate without looking down on people for being too conceptual, or too Gelugpa, or too sutrayana, or for not knowing as much as other people about something? What is the point of these childish comments about things like people having a quote from Hindu scripture in their signature, as though that invalidates all their opinions? This sectarianism and scholarly waving dicks around has got to go! The irony of this being on a thread about effing BODHICHITTA would be hilarious if it weren't so sad to see that a thread about such a noble [i would say concept, but you'd probably yell at me. So place here whatever word meets your standards of precision and non-conceptuality, O scholars] devolves so rapidly into the shrieking of kids in a sandpit.

If people refused to buy foreclosed houses the banks would still have to foreclose people, since they have to make money - only, less of these houses would be built and owned, as the banks wouldn't be making as much money from this business. Business will always adjust to supply and demand. So I don't think buying a foreclosed house is supporting harming anyone, people who can't afford it are foreclosed anyway - go for it. If anything, this means your parents won't have to house you. It's wonderful that you are trying so hard to do the right thing, most people wouldn't even pause to think about it.

I think there's a difference between having compassion for someone who wishes to harm you, and allowing them to harm you. A bodhisattva could have compassion for someone who tries to kill them, hoping for them to be free of their mental afflictions of malice and anger; at the same time using the force necessary to trip them over and kick away the knife. Hate the mental affliction, have compassion for the afflicted, defend yourself from the action.

And seances are reliable sources of information? In order to believe seance information, you have to assume that the medium is really contacting a spirit, that the spirit knows the topic accurately, that the spirit is truthful, and that the communication is not being warped at all by the preconceptions lodged in the mediums' subconscious. I'm not saying no accurate information can ever come from a seance, but if you don't automatically believe everything humans say then you shouldn't automatically believe in all seance information. If someone told you stuff on the street, you'd hopefully not instantly believe every word from their mouth as though they are infallible sources of knowledge. Doubt scripture, doubt seances, doubt channelling, doubt the news, doubt everything you are told, doubt everything you have ever been told - test it with reason and experience.

I think you're misinterpreting what he means by 'dissociate'. He's not referring to things like the realisation that the body is not the self, which is desirable. What he means is about people ignoring their bodies, blocking out physical sensations and excessively clinging to their intellect, being ungrounded. I'm getting the impression that OldChi and DRT are really saying the same thing but there's just some mistranslation: spontaneous movement can clear blockages, but don't overemphasise it, and don't try to interpret the movements or judge them.

I don't think it's possible to achieve access concentration from walking meditation. It's not possible to focus the whole mind on one thing while doing any other activity (apart from things like breathing and digestion of course). In access concentration, absolutely no mental activity is going on apart from focus on the object, you would not be discerning 'now my left foot is hitting the ground' because that simple inference is drawing on memory, language, notions of time... things like this and counting are fine, do them if they work at this stage, but just be aware that they can't lead all the way. You will be using some conscious intention to walk, putting some awareness into your surroundings, and subconscious mental processes will be going on for balance and such. You can get quite far in shamatha with walking meditation, it's practical if you're getting tired, and it's fine for vipashyana or 4 immeasurables. To get all the way to access concentration or the jhanas, though, ultimately requires prioritising practice sitting or lying down. Once you have mastered a jhana, however, you could if desired dip in and out of it during the tiny pauses between motions as you walk. Hope that helps.

Try one minute daily at first, and slowly increase. If you can do only 5 seconds, you can start with that and build. Don't make it a challenge. Do what you can do easily, and find that what you can do easily slowly increases.

I have a mate with moderate ADHD. After he developed an anxiety issue (idk if related to his ADHD or just stress), I taught him some basic meditation, and got him a copy of that Alan Wallace book I'm constantly mentioning: 'The Attention Revolution'. This may have happened anyway, given time, but his anxiety issue was sorted. He started off able to sit and meditate for about 5 mins. The last time he mentioned it, he said he was doing 10, and 15 on a good day. It's probably more now. This means that in a few months, his concentration about doubled! So, I strongly recommend shamatha, as outlined in that book. There are many different forms which suit different people best, but mindfulness of breathing will generally be the one best suited for beginners and those with ADHD. It makes sense, if you consider neuroplasticity. Practice sitting still and focusing contently with a basis of relaxation, and surely you'll get better at those skills.

In the top left corner is the start of a drawing of a castle. Finish the drawing?

Great article. What motivates some cultivators to take drugs is the idea that a particular state is spiritual advancement, so they should get the state. Actually, we just have to realise what is already there. Any experience is just a temporary configuration of mind and matter, a display of Tao rather than Tao itself. Experiences are signposts along the way, so they have to happen, but not for their own value. Access concentration, for example, is necessary only as it means that excitation and laxity, which obscure direct opening into reality, have been made dormant. If a drug could propel someone into samadhi, taking that drug would be missing the actual point of shamatha practice.

I don't know much about herbs, so I can't recommend you any. I can suggest getting a copy of The Attention Revolution by Alan Wallace, it's a brilliant guide to shamatha, which is IMHO a vital aspect of cultivation, you need an extremely stable mind to get serious progress. Also avoid multitasking, be more focused all the time. Any willpower exercise helps, especially moderate retention.

I don't know much about fixing issues like this, but I have this advice: 1) Try gentle yoga asanas. 2) Meditate lying down.

Where mind leads, chi follows. Utterly open the mind beyond all concepts and dualities, and realise all things as displays of Tao lacking inherent nature. Your chi will then follow to express its deepest potential. You just have to work on sila and samadhi (The Attention Revolution by Alan Wallace is very helpful), use that as a basis for prajna through vipashyana, and ultimately just allow realisation of Tao to bloom.

I think your experience was probably not kundalini, because that would have triggered a lasting transformation of mind and body. See http://thetaobums.com/topic/30811-pranotthana-or-kundalini/ The thing I am focusing on from your post, is the mention of issues with anxiety and depression. Normally I would recommend things on developing one-pointedness, but I think you should make dealing with these issues your current priority. And definitely don't do too much with your chi, because you don't want to catalyse more purification than you are ready for. I'm not saying to avoid one-pointedness and chi practices entirely, but be moderate. Yeah, so I would say focus on virtuous acts/speech/thought, devotional practices and developing loving-kindness. Prostrations and mantras would help, devotional practices like this soften the heart, open the mind and bring a light, fresh spirit. This is a book for developing loving-kindness and so on, with some teaching on one-pointedness: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Four-Immeasurables-Practices-Open-Heart/dp/155939353X/ref=la_B001IGHPQ2_1_23?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381663714&sr=1-23 Later on, when your anxiety and depression aren't so bad, start with http://www.amazon.co.uk/Attention-Revolution-Unlocking-Focused-v-ution/dp/0861712765/ref=la_B001IGHPQ2_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381663906&sr=1-1 Hope that helps.

Choosing the eternal stillness would just result in eternal stillness. Choosing the human option might mean going through billions of difficult lifetimes, but then I would be a Buddha for eternity. That's like pricking your finger to cure yourself of cancer. Clearly it's better to have eternal enlightenment after finite suffering, than just an eternal neutral state.

I think there was a guy called Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago preaching stuff (some of it brilliant), as I doubt Christianity could have started without some seed. Whether this man was crucified after angry Jews complained, IDK. As for all the miracles and the history in the bible, I'm very, very sceptical.

If every time we feel a pull or a fizz or a warmth or bliss or sad or quiet mind or cascading thoughts or floaty or heavy or bored or focused or cold or see some lights we fixate on it, we never get anywhere. We're always looking for stuff to happen rather than doing the practice. In some practices, specific phenomena are signs to alter your tack. E.g. when a nimitta appears during anapana sati, focus on that rather than the breath. And of course, as we progress we may be able to do different practices we couldn't benefit from much before. If we start to get kundalini issues, we back off. If we happen to develop abilities, we use them for good. Aside from common sense stuff like that, the classic response of a sage to phenomena is 'temporary creation of mind and/or body. Why are you staring at this stone when the path is ahead of you?'.

So? This is just some geometry with nonsensical made-up 'scientific' words as 'explanation'. What is the 'inward gravitational pressure of cubic space'? How can space and time be expressed as circles on the shape of eggs (as fig8 suggests)? Obviously as physics can be expressed as mathematics, and chemistry is a result of physical laws, and biology is a result of physical and chemical laws, you can find mathematical patterns like this. But what does this have to do with techno-babble about stuff people like Drunvalo Melchizedek or David Icke pulled out of their ass? If you're going to interpret natural laws in a mystical way, you need to give reasoning for that. Don't just say 'this pattern exists, therefore this shape is the source of harmonic convergence of alpha particles across the spiral consciousness Gaia complex' and hope nobody asks you to explain where that leap of thought comes from.

You'll make much faster progress if you stop fussing over all these phenomena, thinking they're important and asking what they mean. Sometimes it just goes really smoothly. Sometimes it's really murky. Peeling an onion one layer at a time.

To remind you of impermanence and mortality, so you detach from the body and senses leading to a more stable mind, contentment and a stronger drive to cultivate.

I've seen a few of them. I've found it interesting, but with a LOT of pseudoscience, faulty logic and magical thinking. If you know enough chemistry, biology, physics, and some other stuff; you can see nonsense where others see plausible theories or even facts. The alternative history is an example, because if you actually look for the evidence it comes down to having to trust Drunvalo Melchizedek's 'evidence' and his interpretations of things. The sacred geometry is another example, because you can take anything and make apparently profound patterns from it, if you want to find them (confirmation bias) like in The Number 23. So yeah, be very critical. Look for evidence, if you find it don't stop there, but look at the strength of the evidence. Google what skeptics have to say, Google what the believers have to say, reflect carefully. The internet is plagued with bull masquerading as knowledge.