Songtsan

true and this is why duality will always remain true even as nondualism is also true - but that reality which is 'out there' will forever be untouchable by mind...we see a translation. As far as awareness as an absolute I have no idea, but I am willing to accept everything from nihilism to the Supersoul. I state things such as 'It's the nature of awareness to be ultimately pure and untouchable by the perturbations' but I honestly don't know this for sure...but that's what everyone says! I believe that it can be emptied of patternings or skandhas, but have not seen it happen yet.

continued... the way to view 'my system' is thusly:... All is Mind is a view used in looking at a single moment of reality, moment from moment. It simply states that in this moment, you are that, which is that moment and wherever you are with it. As everything experienced is a perception, and the mind is the mirror upon which the game of perception plays out, you are that awareness of Mind which is inclusive of all reality present in that which you perceive. Neti neti is a view which is used to look at chained moments of time, which form patterns which become labeled.as identities, things, etc. - so it applies to the fabrications. It is used to break attachment to views of identity, permanence, absolutist ideals and so on So to me, All is Mind is used to be aware that time doesn't exist, just the eternal moment, and that that moment is what I am then. It is more based on inclusion of all percepts as self when reality is viewed as only existent in the present. Neti neti is used to defuse delusions of permanence, delusions of non-momentary existence (i.e. past/future ideations/plans), and various ego constructs - it is used 'in time' - i.e. in views which take place in chained events.

I also wanted to state that my All is Mind view is based on strong empiric evidence from neurobiology and other neurosciences as well as Sensory-perception Psychology. It is a mainstream belief now in the sciences of perception, consciousness and whatnot that all of our perceptions are occurring inside the brain as opposed to in the sense organs. This includes physical sensations such as orgasm. Look up the 'homunculus' for more information on that. So I am not just adopting Buddhist views...I learned about this before seriously being involved in Buddhism. As far as neti, neti is concerned, it seems the flip-side of the coin - that is..... to be continued....

...anyways, ummm.. argue with you guys later - its been fun!

I object to the use of the word 'omniscience' if used in its conventional sense. Buddha was certainly not omniscient!

I never said I had no views....if I did (have no views that is), I wouldn't need to be searching for the viewless experience..

Honestly, I simply haven't decided yet what I will be. Perhaps one day I will commit to a specific path. There is a funny quote which I used to like: "The whole banquet is in the first bite." - which I took to mean that the patterns of all things can be seen from the simplest of experiences, as nature/reality is fractal-like in its ways. Enlightenment shouldn't be so complex that one needs to pick and choose between different systems - even these systems are constantly arguing, and were formed when specific individuals 'broke off from the pack.' That being said, I would enjoy the discipline of a rigorous system - but I am very picky about teachers and I don't know that there are any around me that I would place great faith in. I hate to even be defined as adhering to madhyamika or samkya - if I come to my own conclusions about something after reading various teachings, using my conceptual mind, it is clear that there will be contradictions...this is the price I have to pay for being a maverick. At the same time, I must come back to the simplest of practices - direct perception with wisdom eye open....I don't really feel worried! I am not a Buddhist - I honestly feel more Taoist anyways - in Taoism there is much more room for mystery and finding knowing by doing versus extensive philosophy...one needs hold nothing in their mind - no views.... I have the view that no views is a good view. Reality is the great teacher - its always around me. I like you accept good teachings wherever they come..I also try to let them become vague in my mind so that the teachings that stand out the most will be those with the most power and truth. I use fuzzy logic style behavior to understand things, and then come back to these things from a thousand different angles. I like to lose track of big words.... A lot of times, even though I have read about a certain thing hundreds of times, I purposefully try to lose the definition - especially when it deals with words in others languages...I am trying to basically allow phoenix-like processes of re-arisal teach me anew each time so that I don't become functionally fixed or think I know it all. I am a big fan of spontaneous meditation also shikan taza the more one throws oneself into different things, the more flexible ones mind becomes I aim for transpersonality I dont like feeling fixed to me, following a specific spiritual path as outlined by the 'sages' is almost a form of replication. Let's say we are all hiking up the same mountain - I walk on some people's trails that they have made in their journey - then I cut across the bush to someone else's trail. In the mean time I get way cut up by brambles and berry bushes. I take way the hell longer to get to the top than a lot of people. I am busy exploring - that is the bottom line. One should not have fear that one won't make it somewhere special...the universe has a funny way of making sure everyone gets what they want. Endless beings have endless ways to enlightenment. I you see me thinking I am Buddha - please kill me! But if you see me thinking that I am the fool, then you know that I am doing everything right. The fool can go anywhere and be anyone. He is actually more powerful in many ways than a Buddha!

YES/NO as idealized thought constructs that are inter-shared between many beings, and so thus they have reality, but I don't hold a traditionalist view...I personally think that shakti is behind them all!

What you speak of sounds a lot like the concept of Brahman - no I am not that - holding views about such things I try to avoid anyways...I have not yet seen it in its pure form myself, so I hold no such notions as to its place in the universe - I do believe that the original nature of the mind is purity without superimpositions. If I am an anythingist, which I can be from time to time, it is a sort of agnostic like 'I am not sure yet-ist' I have studied Theraveda pretty thoroughly, especially the writings of Thanissaro Bhikku - know him? - excellent teacher - all his stuff is available free online somewhere, or else he will send you his books for free, although donations are accepted.

I like Shiva, Krishna, Kali, and bunches of the other deities, but I am not so much into deity worship anymore, as I think that most of them are simply divinized thought constructs. I do believe in the existence of the Mahashakti though, and this is significant to my path - to my mind, it is 'she' who animates the deities in the minds of men, although I could be way off.

no - I see that there are major differences - I am a builder of my own system out of the many different styles and even contradictory philosophies....it is forever a work in progress, and will not end...actually I try my damndest not to define myself. I fully believe that one should "Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the masters. Instead seek for yourself what the masters sought." Even Buddha studied various systems before he finally came to his own personal way. Clinging to spiritual systems is much like tribalism to me - joining a gang! lol Also, one might not feel comfortable not being in what has been defined as a 'sure path to enlightenment,' whereas I am not afraid to fail, and I am in fact not attached to succeeding. I am simply enjoying the paths. mainly I am a "It's time to stop studying for a while and meditate-ist" - that is what I would call myself at this moment, although its not been actualizing all that great because I am in such a stressful life period.

This is great stuff...I will add it to my 'bible' thank you

hehe

Taoism (various schools), Theraveda Buddhism, Mahamudra, Zen and other Mahayana, Sufism, Spiritism, Shamanism, Tantra (various facets of Indian and Tibetan Vajrayana), Western Science (i.e. empiricism), Western Psychologies (transpersonal, gestalt, jungian, health, cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, and others), Advaita Vedanta, Yoga (Patanjali's, 8-limbs, etc.), and more and more... I am not, and have no intentions of becoming a traditionalist anything. I am not in a hurry! I am having fun. I am in my heart a Universalist.

Yeah - one is supposed to remain unattached to the vehicles, as well as enlightenment itself. Another thing I am really working on is holding intent solid without words or surface cogitations, sort of on the partially subconscious level, which will require a self-reifying habit to be set up - expressing complex intentions without internally verbalizing them - Gestalt style. Direct conception of intent without verbalization would likely still be considered a type of superimposition, especially since intent has a goal behind it, but it seems closer to directly 'being' instead of 'thinking that one is being,' because one states that something is so. To me, sublingual vocalizations seem to draw energy away from what is important. There is really no need to state anything, we already know what we are going to say!

I can however, simply relate neti, neti to a statement of the ultimate purity of the pristine awareness, free from illusions...This seems in line with the various systems that I am hybridizing. 'All is Mind' of course is the same. That is itself not a statement about awareness itself, just mind. Everything seems to line up as far as I can tell.

Beliefs are illusions - superimpositions of the mind. Belief in God/s - even if he/she/it/they do exist, is/are a false conception/s about reality - "The God that can be known is not the God." At the same time, "The Non-existent God that can be known as non-existent is not the Non-existent God." What I am saying is that none of your beliefs are entirely correct although they may be useful shadow worlds to understand reality by. I like how the Buddha said not to get lost in views about stuff that cannot be known - you get caught up in a 'thicket of views...' Avoid the thickets - unless you are bored!

Basically the first two views/tools I would use only when in the extremes as I mentioned...a good illustration would be a line, with negative attachment on one side, positive attachment on another, and equanimity in the middle....as long as I was in the 'mostly equanimous zone' I would aim for direct perception without views (including the views I hold about direct perception). On the ends of the line I would remind myself of those views, set up my intent to hold that view and turn it into a perception. It is no wonder they call perception attainments 'states' A state is basically synonymous with the word 'stance' which is basically synonymous with the word 'view' - it is the place you are at or coming from or watching from. Since the perception attainments are considered fabricated states, as one directly pursues them, I would posit that one is fabricating a viewpoint... what think y'all?

Good point about neti neti - it is, when searching for the self, a statement that 'these things' are not the self...so keep looking! I see it as a good tool to remind one to be unattached to the false trappings of 'assumed self'

No one is not a beginner - Zen mind beginner's mind! It is both a view and a method. A method since it sets up an intent to either embrace all reality as oneself or deny it. The intent is the wordless thing - the words are the superimposition of a view. Using the words as a tool then forgetting them while retaining the essence, does a trick or two. See above and also - I never meant it to imply non-existence. What it means to me is that "This is not my self, that is not my self," etc. - it is used to detach oneself from that which one is attached to. Again it is a method as well as a view. Actually all views are also arguably methods as they have effects on consciousness. A method is a procedure to accomplish a result - doesn't matter if its conscious or unconscious IMO. However, the pathway there is a method. When direct seeing is reached I agree that it is no longer a view - but until then before it is directly realized my ideas of what it is are views and thus, even though I am thinking of it as a method, I hold a view of what it is at the same time as I apply it so it is stuck as a view as well...for now. views = descriptions = labeling = concepts... View is defined as: a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion. "strong political views" synonyms: opinion, point of view, viewpoint, belief, judgment, thinking, notion, idea,conviction, persuasion, attitude, feeling, sentiment, concept,hypothesis, theory; It is possible to achieve states though which are free of fabrications, according to many paths - this is what absorption, samadhi, enlightenment, etc. states are all about - mind being wholly focused on one thing without dualities - forgetting the self, direct perception, etc. A direct perception isn't a fabrication...'fabrication' refers to something 'made up' vs. something that actually exists unoriginated (although fabrications are technically unoriginated too - as they are due to action/reaction chains). I am just stating Buddhist beliefs according to the systems of jhanas however - never been there myself hmmm...I will contemplate this. Interesting discussion...please continue!

To me food is medicine and science is religion..Science is the study of reality as religion and spirituality seem to be also. I foresee the eventual merging of all sciences and religions. Searching for truth is the same search regardless of the label. Here are some neat quotes by Einstein: "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality. Science is defined as: "..the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Taoism is very much a science in my view...it observes the natural world...science is basically about observation. Tantra is defined as: "Because it elaborates (tan) copious and profound matters, especially relating to the principles of reality (tattva) and sacred mantras, and because it provides liberation (tra), it is called a tantra.[4]" "A person who, irrespective of caste, creed or religion, aspires for spiritual expansion or does something concrete, is a Tantric. Tantra in itself is neither a religion nor an 'ism'. Tantra is a fundamental spiritual science. So wherever there is any spiritual practice it should be taken for granted that it stands on the Tantric cult."[6]" Tantra originally meant 'the science of life'

Well, it takes a while for muscle mass gain to be effective in increasing basal metabolic rate. It's about 50 calories per pound. Eating less, while still exercising and consuming enough protein, is the most effective way to lose weight, hands down. They conducted meta-analyses on research studies which compared exercise alone, diet alone, and diet + exercise, and it goes without saying that being in whats called a caloric deficit, while exercising is the tops. This was an analysis of hundreds of studies rolled into one. The science of it is this: 1 lb of fat is equal to 3500 calories to lose about 1 pound of fat per week, be in a caloric deficit of 3500 calories a week below your daily caloric needs, which are based on BMR + calories expended through all activities. The standard way, to combine diet + exercise to lose one pound a week is to burn off an extra 250 calories a day through exercise, which should be about 30-40 minutes of moderate intensity work, and eat 250 calories less. Here is an example: Daily caloric needs -> 1750 (BMR + activity levels), minus 250 from calories burned from exercise (not included in activity calories in this example) - 250 calories for caloric deficit. Actual calories eaten -> 1500 approximate fat weight lost per week - > 1 pound of fat as has been mentioned, often times when people start exercising, they might seemingly gain weight - but this is usually due to other factors, such as increased fluid volume in muscles which is a result from increased muscle tone. People generally don't gain any muscle mass in the first 4-8 weeks of resistance exercise, as all gains are due pretty much to neuromuscular adaptations. The increase in BMR through muscle gain is minimal at first, whereas the reduction in % body fat through diet + exercise is immediate if the correct procedures are followed. Honestly, and I have been researching this for years, the 40:30:30 macronutrient ratio I mentioned above is one of the best and healthiest diets to stay on permanently for many people. Unless you are an endurance athlete or whatnot. Americans eat way too many carbs, and this is causing all sorts of health issues. The detailed version of this is as follows: 40% carbs by total calorie amount, of which only 10% of this amount (not 10% out of 40%, but 10% of the 40%) should be simple sugars (avoid bad sugars like dextrose, corn syrup, etc.) the other carb calories should be complex carbs of the low glycemic index type The protein should be complete protein...try to avoid too many red meats The fat should be mostly PUFAs and MUFAs - polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats. Fish oil is also important. Try to find the perfect balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Meal frequency is also important - too many meals causes the body to have insulin in the bloodstream more often, which interferes with fat oxidation. Less meals are better - especially considering that the meals will be high in protein/fat. These will make you feel satiated for a long time afterwards - you shouldn't really want to graze all day. Avoid alcohol as well as this also interferes with fat oxidation. I usually eat two meals a day when I am doing my healthy thing. As I mentioned before, plan your meals based around activity levels.

hey - online! nice.

Honestly, how can one not love Deci Belle? I try not to have favorites but if I did, she would be one of them. For realsies! I could never stay mad at Deci Belle or anyone else for long...hehe We are in a Savage Garden of Eden here folks! Watch out for the beautiful spiky things!

Have you ever tried this? Being immersed up to your neck in water and working on technique....I'd also like to throw one of those Century wavemaster punching/kicking bags in water and work on speed drills.