The jhanas

[Sunya]

 

LOL

[宁]

From a non-dual perspective, learning from a great living teacher is learning from yourself, of yourself.

 

People find it easier to quote from dead masters, but to humble oneself to a living guide takes much more courage. Then of course, you get to a point... but that point is not worth talking about if you haven't made that first step of honest and open humility, releasing of yourself and your thought patterns, and what you think you know and lay it down at the feet of someone who has actually gone through the entire process themselves, in lineage.

 

 

You're right, but you're waisting your time

We know this fellow for quite a long time....

There's no way we can help him, but I guess you had to give it a shot.

 

Let him be and have his experience...

The misinformation that he spreads also keep the ones that are not properly motivated from advancing on the path, which i consider to be quite a service to Dao, paradoxically.

It's nice to see that everyone has his role to play in this great scheme of life...

 

It's hard to change even if you want to,

harder even if you don't care about it...

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm just defending my own identity. What I'm describing is important to me and it makes me who I am. Since you've threatened it with your comments, I take steps to protect it.

 

Nah... If you read this... it's like your reading to yourself.

 

It's hard to change even if you want to,

harder even if you don't care about it...

 

That's absolutely true! It's not that he's wrong all the time though. Just insensitive to process. His approach is an extreme view all the time, not very practical and down to Earth.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Nah... If you read this... it's like your reading to yourself.

 

So you agree then. Now stop dicking around and move out of my way fool.

[Vajrahridaya]

So you agree then. Now stop dicking around and move out of my way fool.

 

I only partially agree with you.

[markern]

So you agree then. Now stop dicking around and move out of my way fool.

 

Why don`t you and Findley get a thread of your own where you can battle it out over who is going to be the next Buddha

[Tibetan_Ice]

So, does anyne have ersonal experience with the Jhanas? And if you have experienced them are you able to reenter them in daily life. Do you know to what a degree it is possible to regulary access jhanas up to say the 4th in daily life or is retreat almost always necesary for that?

 

For a great book on Jhanas try "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook By Ajahn Brahm, Jack Kornfield".

 

I've gotten many nimittas (which are mind objects that appear once you are resting in the natural state), which is the first step. I've seen a sun, a moon, the earth, several colored disks and most of these nimittas persist right through daily life, some ever for a few days. Had I known at the time that you focus your attention on them completely until you either merge with them or they explode, I might have reached the jhanas sooner. I'm no expert on it and I can't duplicate the process at will, but, it seems that exercise early in the day (long hikes) coupled with deep relaxation and effortless one-pointed meditation produce pretty stable nimittas for me. Sometimes I merge with them but I get too excited and awed; I blow it. Funny, seems that merging with them even for a short time seems to cure minor ailments.

 

Lately I've been practicing refining the mantra (because I've watched some Youtubes about David Lynch) and I've taken the mantra to finer and more intuitive levels, and drilling down to a fine point. Like an infintesimally small blip in consciousness. For the past two days meditations, a white star-like sun has appeared, with long beams of light. Not round like a sun but more like a star. Not sure what it is but it seems to be the origin of the mantra on a very fine intuitive level. I haven't succeeded in merging into it yet.. I'm just enjoying watching it and contemplating what it might be..

 

TI

[markern]

For a great book on Jhanas try "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook By Ajahn Brahm, Jack Kornfield".

 

I've gotten many nimittas (which are mind objects that appear once you are resting in the natural state), which is the first step. I've seen a sun, a moon, the earth, several colored disks and most of these nimittas persist right through daily life, some ever for a few days. Had I known at the time that you focus your attention on them completely until you either merge with them or they explode, I might have reached the jhanas sooner. I'm no expert on it and I can't duplicate the process at will, but, it seems that exercise early in the day (long hikes) coupled with deep relaxation and effortless one-pointed meditation produce pretty stable nimittas for me. Sometimes I merge with them but I get too excited and awed; I blow it. Funny, seems that merging with them even for a short time seems to cure minor ailments.

 

Lately I've been practicing refining the mantra (because I've watched some Youtubes about David Lynch) and I've taken the mantra to finer and more intuitive levels, and drilling down to a fine point. Like an infintesimally small blip in consciousness. For the past two days meditations, a white star-like sun has appeared, with long beams of light. Not round like a sun but more like a star. Not sure what it is but it seems to be the origin of the mantra on a very fine intuitive level. I haven't succeeded in merging into it yet.. I'm just enjoying watching it and contemplating what it might be..

 

TI

 

I recently bought the bok but haven`t read much of it. I think Brahm is very dgmatic in the face of solid information that counter his claims on the absolute necesity of jhanas. Kornfield points this out in the foreword. There is anotehr book that is called the experience of Samadhi that interviews verious theravad teachers about the Jhanas. Some of them are incredibly rigid in their views on the Jhanas others very flexible. And for the most part they contradict each other completly. Since all of them are interviewed since they actualy have success with their sudents that does not speak well for the views of the most rigid ones IMO. But I am sure both Brahm and the others have a lot of interesting stuff to say. Actualy, one of the most inflexible teachers in the samadhi book was the one that made me see that the fourth Jhana could be especialy beneficial beacuse even after you leave it and the jhana factors disapear the wisdom light that comes in the forth jhana stays with you in vipassana afterwards and that light makes it much eaaier to do insight meditation.

 

Do you see the nimittas of the owrld and moon etc. as they were real hyscal objects when you are out of your meditations?

[Encephalon]

[Vajrahridaya]

I would argue that you should dispense with your presumptuous posturing.

 

You presume?

 

I'm a Vajrayana practitioner and thinker. Popularly known as a Tibetan Buddhist. I'm not a Theravadin.

 

I don't think or experience as you do. I'm fine with that.

 

I feel that your perception is stuck in the mud of limited experience and identification with it as a reality is a big hoax that draws more popular support than Television. You make assumptions based upon limitations and project that anyone outside of that box must be, "in the clouds". My whole life this materialist perception has been bombarded with a deeper vision. It is answered by Mahayana and Tantric Vajrayana, and especially Dzogchen. Not by your stuck in 5 sense perception.

 

Your proclivity for metaphysical indulgence is unparalleled.

 

That's my life of experience. I've always had a vision beyond the senses. I only speak how I know to those that can know it. I will not speak like you as I don't know how to and don't have your mind nor experience. Thank goodness. My critical thinking see's into areas beyond your verification but not beyond other peoples. So... I'll just go ahead and be one of those silly cloud dwellers... ok? You can go ahead and have your feet firmly planted on Earth for as long as your life lasts.

 

Agnostic Buddhism is a hot topic right now. Buddhism as it was originally taught had nothing to do with metaphysical speculation. He regularly told people to dispense with questions that are beyond the realm of verifiability and falsifiability. He was a creative genius, one of the world's first critical thinkers, and quite possibly the world's first postmodernist. There are many talented scholars who are presenting this element of the original teaching.

 

The teachings attributed to the original Buddha are filled with so called, "magical beings" and "magical occurrences". These are explained through the science of Jhana. The spiritual experience of the Buddhas words are what leads to Mahayana and Vajrayana.

 

We are all perfectly capable of composing our own private fantasies.

 

Mine are verifyable in Buddhist teachings and the teachings or autobriographies of various Buddhist masters.

 

I know that materialist based Buddhism is a hot topic right now. But, I ain't interested.

 

 

and consider the possibility that you may have missed the boat? I don't think you can, but if you are so moved, you might consult some references that I cited above in my Master's thesis. I would also be delighted to hear about your educational background. If I find out that you've got a PhD in Asian studies from Columbia, I will bow down, call you master, and not pick on you again.

 

School hardly makes anyone a master in spirituality. You have too much attachment to the materialist world of physical science. You're still trapped in body consciousness and the limits of this identification. Why should I go there?

 

I'm not interested in your Western minded recommendations. I like those crazy far out Eastern Mystics... YAH MAN!!

 

Don't presume to know anything because you're getting a Masters. Stay humble and open to deeper and subtler perceptions that hard liner body dwellers are just not going to get. That will challenge your ego more. Of course if you want to apply Buddhism to social philanthropy, then you have to express in a way that's popularly acceptable through a majorities limitations in perception. But the teachings on Chakras and subtle practices are secret for a reason. Because ya'll just ain't ready fa dat. How ya like ma broken English? Do dat make me stoopid?

 

My Mom has a PHD in Womens Art's and Spirituality, does that help?

[Encephalon]

You presume?

 

I'm a Vajrayana practitioner and thinker. Popularly known as a Tibetan Buddhist. I'm not a Theravadin.

 

I don't think or experience as you do. I'm fine with that.

 

I feel that your perception is stuck in the mud of limited experience and identification with it as a reality is a big hoax that draws more popular support than Television. You make assumptions based upon limitations and project that anyone outside of that box must be, "in the clouds". My whole life this materialist perception has been bombarded with a deeper vision. It is answered by Mahayana and Tantric Vajrayana, and especially Dzogchen. Not by your stuck in 5 sense perception.

That's my life of experience. I've always had a vision beyond the senses. I only speak how I know to those that can know it. I will not speak like you as I don't know how to and don't have your mind nor experience. Thank goodness. My critical thinking see's into areas beyond your verification but not beyond other peoples. So... I'll just go ahead and be one of those silly cloud dwellers... ok? You can go ahead and have your feet firmly planted on Earth for as long as your life lasts.

The teachings attributed to the original Buddha are filled with so called, "magical beings" and "magical occurrences". These are explained through the science of Jhana. The spiritual experience of the Buddhas words are what leads to Mahayana and Vajrayana.

Mine are verifyable in Buddhist teachings and the teachings or autobriographies of various Buddhist masters.

 

I know that materialist based Buddhism is a hot topic right now. But, I ain't interested.

School hardly makes anyone a master in spirituality. You have too much attachment to the materialist world of physical science. You're still trapped in body consciousness and the limits of this identification. Why should I go there?

 

I'm not interested in your Western minded recommendations. I like those crazy far out Eastern Mystics... YAH MAN!!

 

Don't presume to know anything because you're getting a Masters. Stay humble and open to deeper and subtler perceptions that hard liner body dwellers are just not going to get. That will challenge your ego more. Of course if you want to apply Buddhism to social philanthropy, then you have to express in a way that's popularly acceptable through a majorities limitations in perception. But the teachings on Chakras and subtle practices are secret for a reason. Because ya'll just ain't ready fa dat. How ya like ma broken English? Do dat make me stoopid?

 

My Mom has a PHD in Womens Art's and Spirituality, does that help?

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

I'm going to compliment you; your patronizing skills are almost as well-honed as my own. Well done.

 

It is a simple rule of cognitive hygiene (which evidently doesn't matter as much in here as in, say, a physics blog), that we do not presume to know more than we do. In critical thinking circles, this is known as intellectual humility. All I am doing by pointing out my level of education is delineating my limits of knowledge, not my wisdom, and I'm sure you would agree with me that there is a difference. I also believe you would agree with me that a certain amount of formal study is necessary just to acquire competency enough to discuss it with others, much less profess the content.

 

I acknowedge that Tibetan Buddhism is not a subject that avails itself to empirical study. We all get that. There are some things that the scientific method cannot connect with. We all get that. The point is to know the difference between what it is possible to know for certain and what is not, and to abstain from confusing the two in order to sound professorial. A simple question in a lower division philosophy class would ask you, How can you know if you're deluding yourself? Your answers above are textbook examples this inability, and by doing so, you create artificial disagreements between like-minded souls. I count many agnostic humanists in my circle of friends who have no genuine animosity to Tibetan or Mahayana or Theraveda or any of the other lineages, but honest inquiry begins with feet on the ground. Personal experience will most likely remain qualitatively superior when it comes to matters of the soul, but not if your ideas about the soul are patently untrue, demonstrably false, or on a collision course with factual information.

 

Some folks believe that all homosexuals should be taken out back and stoned to death, and they will cite chapter and verse in the defense of beliefs. I am not comparing your sentiment to such obscenity, but the nature of your internal logic is the same; you have no independent references to base your ideas upon. You just cite esoteric notions and expect the rest of the world to accept your reasoning, and then assert that their hopeless devotion to empiricism prevents them from attaining the lofty heights that you claim to inhabit.

 

"The teachings attributed to the original Buddha are filled with so called, "magical beings" and "magical occurrences". These are explained through the science of Jhana. The spiritual experience of the Buddhas words are what leads to Mahayana and Vajrayana.

Mine are verifyable in Buddhist teachings and the teachings or autobriographies of various Buddhist masters."

 

These are the metaphysics that accrete onto the body of original ideas, usually religious ideas, usually centuries after the originator has already passed away. Buddhism originated in the Iron Age. Does that mean it is sensible to adopt an Iron Age mythology in order to have meaning and enlightenment? Christianity started 500 years later. Does this mean that Christians are obliged to practice their faith within a mythological paradigm of demons, slavery, superstition and religious persecution?

 

You might also want to consider the practical advantage of being a rational humanist who is utterly free to cultivate a spiritual life or not, rather than a metaphysician who does not possess enough scientific literacy to know when he's deluding himself.

 

 

"I've always had a vision beyond the senses." Who hasn't? Do you think this makes you unique? Did you ever get a chance to read "Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists" All these scientists believed in something beyond their senses and their rational faculties, but none of them believed that their professional work supported those beliefs. They acknowledged the legitimacy of both worlds without disparaging either. Simply doing away with one or the other is not what it's about.

 

 

Going to college ain't poisonous. Plenty of lunatics and morons get college degrees every year. The important element is the experience of having to test the veracity of their views with their classmates. You are clearly an intelligent individual. If you can possibly avoid it, don't make the same mistake I made by postponing college too long. I started fifteen years ago when I was 35. You owe it to yourself and the people around you to be able to share your wisdom without confusing the living shit out of them. The degree your mother got doesn't count.

 

But I'm sure she raised you well.

 

Best of luck.

[Sunya]

Going to college ain't poisonous. Plenty of lunatics and morons get college degrees every year. The important element is the experience of having to test the veracity of their views with their classmates. You are clearly an intelligent individual. If you can possibly avoid it, don't make the same mistake I made by postponing college too long. I started fifteen years ago when I was 35. You owe it to yourself and the people around you to be able to share your wisdom without confusing the living shit out of them. The degree your mother got doesn't count.

 

yeah this is why I might go for a PhD in Buddz. I feel like an idiot when I try to communicate anything meaningful. xabir told me couple times that Thusness recommended him to get a PhD to develop the necessary language and communication skills, and theoretical knowledge which is important. It's also very important in this kind of society to have 'credentials'. since you can't just say.. well.. I had the insight through meditation. that just doesn't work epistemologically for many people

[Vajrahridaya]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

I'm going to compliment you; your patronizing skills are almost as well-honed as my own. Well done.

Ok... ok.

 

 

It is a simple rule of cognitive hygiene (which evidently doesn't matter as much in here as in, say, a physics blog), that we do not presume to know more than we do. In critical thinking circles, this is known as intellectual humility. All I am doing by pointing out my level of education is delineating my limits of knowledge, not my wisdom, and I'm sure you would agree with me that there is a difference. I also believe you would agree with me that a certain amount of formal study is necessary just to acquire competency enough to discuss it with others, much less profess the content.

 

Oh of course, the science of symbols as an attempt to describe an object, experience or concept. It's still subtly subjective to a certain degree though, especially when getting into the spiritual. Which is why dependent origination is so clear and deep. Especially when venturing into the abstract. I'll say the word "tree" and your subconscious reference is glancing through faster than conscious thought memory regarding that word symbol, and your conscious mind will bring up a context that fits, hopefully... in a way that I can relate. That relation is based upon popular context though and not your personal context. So both originate dependently on different, co-relating but separate paradigms.

 

What is nice about Mathmatics is it's formula has very specific results. (Which is what Vajrayana and Taoism for that matter attempts to do with it's very specific and detailed inner alchemy practices.) But, this physical math won't lead to liberation from Samsaric vision. Only direct experience of limitless nature will through inner alchemy (which can be joined with math and science) and because of no limits, it can be expressed through endless limits. It's difficult to express this to beings who are without direct meditative experience, even through symbols that are specifically defined. In spiritual conversation we are pointing beyond our seeming selves into the realm of the abstract. Math does this too but it's pinpointing finites within an infinite regress so will never find an end through such dualistic means. Only direct experience through awareness of consciousness will one subtlify enough to get some meat off the bone of life, or out of math and science as well. Not through constant outpouring into symbols and configurations of them.... only.

 

I acknowedge that Tibetan Buddhism is not a subject that avails itself to empirical study. We all get that. There are some things that the scientific method cannot connect with. We all get that. The point is to know the difference between what it is possible to know for certain and what is not, and to abstain from confusing the two in order to sound professorial. A simple question in a lower division philosophy class would ask you, How can you know if you're deluding yourself?

 

One reads the words of previous Masters and follows a Master of a lineage that goes all the way back to the Buddha.

 

Your answers above are textbook examples this inability, and by doing so, you create artificial disagreements between like-minded souls. I count many agnostic humanists in my circle of friends who have no genuine animosity to Tibetan or Mahayana or Theraveda or any of the other lineages, but honest inquiry begins with feet on the ground. Personal experience will most likely remain qualitatively superior when it comes to matters of the soul, but not if your ideas about the soul are patently untrue, demonstrably false, or on a collision course with factual information.

 

Well... in Buddhism there is no soul, unless used as a metaphor. Even the soul is broken down into it's dependent parts.

 

Some folks believe that all homosexuals should be taken out back and stoned to death, and they will cite chapter and verse in the defense of beliefs. I am not comparing your sentiment to such obscenity, but the nature of your internal logic is the same; you have no independent references to base your ideas upon. You just cite esoteric notions and expect the rest of the world to accept your reasoning, and then assert that their hopeless devotion to empiricism prevents them from attaining the lofty heights that you claim to inhabit.

 

Well... I'm generally not talking to those that don't have direct experience beyond the physical. But... I will be in school a heck of a lot more.

 

"The teachings attributed to the original Buddha are filled with so called, "magical beings" and "magical occurrences". These are explained through the science of Jhana. The spiritual experience of the Buddhas words are what leads to Mahayana and Vajrayana.

Mine are verifyable in Buddhist teachings and the teachings or autobriographies of various Buddhist masters."

 

These are the metaphysics that accrete onto the body of original ideas, usually religious ideas, usually centuries after the originator has already passed away.

 

Only those without remembered experience of the other side of the physical think such things. Of course it's much subtler than that, as subjectivity goes very deep into non-physical realms of course and it get's abstract here. Like words for demons are in every culture, words for angels are in every culture. It's really all dependently originated and sourced in the mind, but that does not make immaterial experience illusion as there are cross cultural correlatives. As material is merely an assumption of the 5 senses as matter itself is not material. But, once the perception of it is gone from the 6 sense or the tools of the 5 senses, it's considered, "gone". There is a subtler sight that can see past this though and esoterica explains this. Yet it can get mighty subjective in this realm, I agree. Which is why Vajrayana is very specific as well teaching detachment from the subtle arisings that happen as seeming insights into what is beyond the senses as fruit of the practice.

 

You might also want to consider the practical advantage of being a rational humanist who is utterly free to cultivate a spiritual life or not, rather than a metaphysician who does not possess enough scientific literacy to know when he's deluding himself.

 

Science is already doing a good job of deluding itself. It's just physically verifiable delusion that is shared with the similarly deluded. The Earth is NOT solid. Imagine the Chinese soldier who walked in on a Dzogchen master who was busy with the attainment of the Rainbow body or Jalus and freaked out! Only to later become a follower of Vajrayana. This happened more than a few times during the Chinese take over of Tibet in regards to soldiers discovering that there is more to the mind than meets the brain/body organism in their meetings of these Tibetan Masters of mind and body.

 

 

"I've always had a vision beyond the senses." Who hasn't? Do you think this makes you unique?

 

Of course not. But not a vision... as in an idea. I mean literal seeing beyond the 5 senses.

 

Did you ever get a chance to read "Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists" All these scientists believed in something beyond their senses and their rational faculties, but none of them believed that their professional work supported those beliefs.

 

Drop the science and start meditating deeply, under the guidance of a real master of the mind. But... yes, everyone has their process and must have their answers through whatever means they crave, until the energy propelling that craving ceases in some way, and another method presents itself in a make sense fashion. "Eureka!! But wow... that was there the entire time, but my desire to see it this way through this method was blocking the obvious!"

 

They acknowledged the legitimacy of both worlds without disparaging either. Simply doing away with one or the other is not what it's about.

 

I can kind of agree. Though, meditation is better than science and we as a humanity could live quite well without physical science and more meditation. But of course, this realm is about adventure, creating and making mistakes, all out of the error correction error assumption that something is wrong and needs to be corrected, and it can be done through tools... instead of a change of perception? Duh! "Wait... there's no error... it was just my head!"

 

 

 

Going to college ain't poisonous. Plenty of lunatics and morons get college degrees every year.

 

Yes, I long for it.

 

The important element is the experience of having to test the veracity of their views with their classmates. You are clearly an intelligent individual. If you can possibly avoid it, don't make the same mistake I made by postponing college too long.

 

I hope only one more year!!

 

I started fifteen years ago when I was 35. You owe it to yourself and the people around you to be able to share your wisdom without confusing the living shit out of them. The degree your mother got doesn't count.

 

Yes I know... that's her work and her good efforts coming to fruition. Thanks for the compliments by the way, that's very rare here. For me at least... I mostly find a barrage of insults. Keeps me on my toes of "praise and blame, it's all the same"... not only that but how to better communicate.

 

No really... I love science and maths. I don't really think we need to go back to the stone ages to be a happy civilization. We'd be too busy trying to survive to be happy! I think we can have a symbiosis between science and spirituality, as well as technology and Earth if we can get past greed a bit more and think less parochially or provincially.

 

But I'm sure she raised you well.

 

She was a good Momma, but sadly monetarily disadvantaged and always working, thus not always the influencer of my mind. But yes... there's only a partial sob story to be spoken of here. All for the strength of me... "Come on baby light my fire!!"

 

Best of luck.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

 

Ok, so you do act your age.

Thank goodness!!

 

yeah this is why I might go for a PhD in Buddz. I feel like an idiot when I try to communicate anything meaningful. xabir told me couple times that Thusness recommended him to get a PhD to develop the necessary language and communication skills, and theoretical knowledge which is important. It's also very important in this kind of society to have 'credentials'. since you can't just say.. well.. I had the insight through meditation. that just doesn't work epistemologically for many people

 

My plan exactly!

Edited September 15, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[markern]

 

 

Agnostic Buddhism is a hot topic right now. Buddhism as it was originally taught had nothing to do with metaphysical speculation. He regularly told people to dispense with questions that are beyond the realm of verifiability and falsifiability.

 

This is such an important point. A lot of budhism today, especialy Tibetan budhism, has degenerated into a huge focus on common specualtive theology. Beliefs that are impossible to verify, that different branches of budhsm, even within tibetan budhism, they can`t agree upon are held as supreemly important. So much time is wasted in thinking about absurdly complex laws of karma, different realms, unfounded superstitions and gods imported from hinduism and whatnot. When I go to E-sangha all they seem to do is knock each over in the head with textural references held to be absolute truth. Its like going to saudi arabia. Even with regards to practical and verifiable stuff like Jhanas, textural references are treated as the sharia. That is just plain silly and shows that one is taking needs for the dogma sought in more conventional religions and importing them in what is a mystical practical endevour where it does not belong. The suttas and vishudumagga are an important starting point but they are inconsistent and totaly inconclusive for anyone other than those in desperate need of dogma. The results gotten with students in various monastaries is what settles the debate but that is not what at least half the teachers pay attention to. They ignore how results cearly are achieved by others because they feel the need to have the buddhas absolute god-like authority behind them. This is a sign of serious need of reform in the direction of practical experiential results. The dharamovergorund aims to and does this very well. My teacher did not agree with everything Daniel Ingram said but he did think it was one of the truest budhist aproaches he had seen. More in the spirit of the buddha then what mostly goes on.

 

Budhism is a mystical religion with a practical aim, period. As such its groups and boards should not function as a catholic seminary with bickering theologicians or rigid whahabi muslims thinking they have the absolute word of god in their sources to extrapolate divine rules from. I once heard tibetan budhism described as roman chatolisism on acid and I think that is unfortunately quite true. A gigantic overly complex theological mastodont with wild mystycism. It is in serious need of reform. Thats one of the most important reasons my teacher left it after four years as a monk. He found the system unworkably rigid and compex. After that he has done mostly vipassana and taoist meditations I think and his rogress has not been less. He says tough that there are a few young lamas that are starting to make things more practical and if they change things more in the future he might go back because the actual meditations and some of the trainings are superb.

 

AS it is now I see E-shangha as, although in many ways highly usefull I am sure, a total degeneration of how buhdists shuld aproach things and dharmaovergorund as the truest aporach there is. Zen and vipassana taught without unnecesary dogma around the world I also think follow a true aproach. Sadly Tibetan budhism with all its great practices is a complete diversion. What you want are insights that create behaviour not endless dogam about the makup of hte world and logical reasoning almost as in western philosophy about how to behave. What makes tibetan budhism great is its practices not its fluff. As quoted above, the buddha was clear on not wasting time specualting about that which can not be verified. Keep it SIMPLE, efective and easily conneced to life as it is lived.

Edited September 15, 2009 by markern

[markern]

[quote name='Blasto' date='Sep 14 2009, 05:20 PM' post=

[Encephalon]

This is such an important point. A lot of budhism today, especialy Tibetan budhism, has degenerated into a huge focus on common specualtive theology. Beliefs that are impossible to verify, that different branches of budhsm, even within tibetan budhism, they can`t agree upon are held as supreemly important. So much time is wasted in thinking about absurdly complex laws of karma, different realms, unfounded superstitions and gods imported from hinduism and whatnot. When I go to E-sangha all they seem to do is knock each over in the head with textural references held to be absolute truth. Its like going to saudi arabia. Even with regards to practical and verifiable stuff like Jhanas, textural references are treated as the sharia. That is just plain silly and shows that one is taking needs for the dogma sought in more conventional religions and importing them in what is a mystical practical endevour where it does not belong. The suttas and vishudumagga are an important starting point but they are inconsistent and totaly inconclusive for anyone other than those in desperate need of dogma. The results gotten with students in various monastaries is what settles the debate but that is not what at least half the teachers pay attention to. They ignore how results cearly are achieved by others because they feel the need to have the buddhas absolute god-like authority behind them. This is a sign of serious need of reform in the direction of practical experiential results. The dharamovergorund aims to and does this very well. My teacher did not agree with everything Daniel Ingram said but he did think it was one of the truest budhist aproaches he had seen. More in the spirit of the buddha then what mostly goes on.

 

Budhism is a mystical religion with a practical aim, period. As such its groups and boards should not function as a catholic seminary with bickering theologicians or rigid whahabi muslims thinking they have the absolute word of god in their sources to extrapolate divine rules from. I once heard tibetan budhism described as roman chatolisism on acid and I think that is unfortunately quite true. A gigantic overly complex theological mastodont with wild mystycism. It is in serious need of reform. Thats one of the most important reasons my teacher left it after four years as a monk. He found the system unworkably rigid and compex. After that he has done mostly vipassana and taoist meditations I think and his rogress has not been less. He says tough that there are a few young lamas that are starting to make things more practical and if they change things more in the future he might go back because the actual meditations and some of the trainings are superb.

 

AS it is now I see E-shangha as, although in many ways highly usefull I am sure, a total degeneration of how buhdists shuld aproach things and dharmaovergorund as the truest aporach there is. Zen and vipassana taught without unnecesary dogma around the world I also think follow a true aproach. Sadly Tibetan budhism with all its great practices is a complete diversion. What you want are insights that create behaviour not endless dogam about the makup of hte world and logical reasoning almost as in western philosophy about how to behave. What makes tibetan budhism great is its practices not its fluff. As quoted above, the buddha was clear on not wasting time specualting about that which can not be verified. Keep it SIMPLE, efective and easily conneced to life as it is lived.

 

Thanks for your comments. There is one point you made that deserves some clarification.

 

"Budhism is a mystical religion with a practical aim, period."

 

Perhaps this is the sentiment of orthodox lineages, but Buddhism did not originate this way. The important point I was attempting to make is that it is NOT a mystical religion, but is in fact a rational, pragmatic, psychological and empirically substantiated philosophy of mind geared for awakening and the alleviation of suffering.

 

I constantly go back to one of my favorite quotes; "metaphysics is for people who are too lazy to study physics." We are obliged to begin with our sensory awareness and rational faculties. But it would be tragic if people stopped there. Taoism offers a means of grounding your "self" on the earth, in physical reality, while allowing your powers of perception to evolve, and I would be the last one to argue that simply because this cannot be measured, it deserves no attention.

 

My goal is to one day heal one of my die-hard critical thinking friends of their maladies with chi! Pranic healing, here I come!

[Vajrahridaya]

What makes tibetan budhism great is its practices not its fluff.

 

Markern,

 

What you consider fluff is actually the result of intense practice as well as part of the integration of spirituality with world. Much of the fluff is methodology as well, which is very positive if you have an understanding of the meaning. As well as many tools as symbols for contemplation and realization. Most all of the methods of Tibetan Buddhism are from India. Just some of the beliefs and systems are Tibetan, like the Tulku system and the Dalai Lama system. But, if you don't understand these systems, then I can see how you would make false assumptions concerning them.

 

Just like any spiritual tradition, there are far less masters than wanna-be's. Vajrayana is no different. But, there are plenty of highly realized Masters in Vajrayana that teach an authentic path to liberation. Lots and lots of them, and many of them are here in the USA or Europe. Australia... etc.

 

This guy Garchen Rinpoche was in Chinese jail for 20 years and all he did was practice. He now lives in the Arizona desert and teaches world wide.

 

 

This guy spent most of his life in cave retreats doing intense practice until he said the Dalai Lama came to him in meditation and said that it was time to come down from the mountain. Then he started teaching until he passed away recently.

 

 

 

Dilgo Kyentse was an amazing Master who was a Rime scholar and saw how every system within Vajrayana was beneficial and complimentary and didn't think that one system was ultimately greater than the other. He passed away recently, but not before writing an Autobiography.

 

Actually the list of great teachers in Vajrayana is quite endless. Of course the list of not good teachers is probably even more endless, but I don't know about many of the not so great teachers. I only know plenty about the great teachers, because that's where I look and that's where I turn my attention.

 

Markern,

 

It's really about how you focus. Your making broad generalizations that are reflective of very little personal experience, or study. Be honest with yourself.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

This is such an important point. A lot of budhism today, especialy Tibetan budhism, has degenerated into a huge focus on common specualtive theology. Beliefs that are impossible to verify, that different branches of budhsm, even within tibetan budhism, they can`t agree upon are held as supreemly important. So much time is wasted in thinking about absurdly complex laws of karma, different realms, unfounded superstitions and gods imported from hinduism and whatnot. When I go to E-sangha all they seem to do is knock each over in the head with textural references held to be absolute truth. Its like going to saudi arabia. Even with regards to practical and verifiable stuff like Jhanas, textural references are treated as the sharia. That is just plain silly and shows that one is taking needs for the dogma sought in more conventional religions and importing them in what is a mystical practical endevour where it does not belong. The suttas and vishudumagga are an important starting point but they are inconsistent and totaly inconclusive for anyone other than those in desperate need of dogma. The results gotten with students in various monastaries is what settles the debate but that is not what at least half the teachers pay attention to. They ignore how results cearly are achieved by others because they feel the need to have the buddhas absolute god-like authority behind them. This is a sign of serious need of reform in the direction of practical experiential results. The dharamovergorund aims to and does this very well. My teacher did not agree with everything Daniel Ingram said but he did think it was one of the truest budhist aproaches he had seen. More in the spirit of the buddha then what mostly goes on.

 

Budhism is a mystical religion with a practical aim, period. As such its groups and boards should not function as a catholic seminary with bickering theologicians or rigid whahabi muslims thinking they have the absolute word of god in their sources to extrapolate divine rules from. I once heard tibetan budhism described as roman chatolisism on acid and I think that is unfortunately quite true. A gigantic overly complex theological mastodont with wild mystycism. It is in serious need of reform. Thats one of the most important reasons my teacher left it after four years as a monk. He found the system unworkably rigid and compex. After that he has done mostly vipassana and taoist meditations I think and his rogress has not been less. He says tough that there are a few young lamas that are starting to make things more practical and if they change things more in the future he might go back because the actual meditations and some of the trainings are superb.

 

AS it is now I see E-shangha as, although in many ways highly usefull I am sure, a total degeneration of how buhdists shuld aproach things and dharmaovergorund as the truest aporach there is. Zen and vipassana taught without unnecesary dogma around the world I also think follow a true aproach. Sadly Tibetan budhism with all its great practices is a complete diversion. What you want are insights that create behaviour not endless dogam about the makup of hte world and logical reasoning almost as in western philosophy about how to behave. What makes tibetan budhism great is its practices not its fluff. As quoted above, the buddha was clear on not wasting time specualting about that which can not be verified. Keep it SIMPLE, efective and easily conneced to life as it is lived.

 

beautiful post mark. I do agree with you. I was recommended by a Tibetan teacher to read Words of My Perfect Teacher, which is one of the most common books given to Nyingma students when they venture into Vajrayana. I found it ridiculous. there were pages and pages and pages of complex details. Every little tidbit was given about the various hells, every realm, every being. I was like ... ok? how is this relevent? it was very dogmatic and I felt like I was being spoonfed irrelevent nonsense.

 

the teacher that I did find is Namkhai Norbu who teaches very pragmatically without relying on dogma. he's lived in the West for over 40 years so he recognizes that we don't sit well with dogma and need more of a practical approach than monks who live in a monastary their whole life and need that stimulation. that's the whole problem I feel. we aren't monks. we need whatever works, and whatever works fast. without needing to memorize irrelevant data.

 

you are right indeed that the methods of Vajrayana are wonderful. and I think that it is possible to remain grounded and still practice Tibetan Buddhism. but I do agree that the tradition needs reform, and it is happening. Namkhai Norbu is one example, i'm sure there are other teachers that are doing the same.

 

I constantly go back to one of my favorite quotes; "metaphysics is for people who are too lazy to study physics."

 

kind of a stupid quote imo since physics is constantly changing and quantum physics didn't even exist prior to the 1940s, now you have mathemetical extrapolations which border on metaphysical reasoning. except mysticism hasn't change at all. the core of mysticism has not been changing really. what will science say 100 years from now? who cares.

Edited September 16, 2009 by mikaelz

[Encephalon]

beautiful post mark. I do agree with you. I was recommended by a Tibetan teacher to read Words of My Perfect Teacher, which is one of the most common books given to Nyingma students when they venture into Vajrayana. I found it ridiculous. there were pages and pages and pages of complex details. Every little tidbit was given about the various hells, every realm, every being. I was like ... ok? how is this relevent? it was very dogmatic and I felt like I was being spoonfed irrelevent nonsense.

 

the teacher that I did find is Namkhai Norbu who teaches very pragmatically without relying on dogma. he's lived in the West for over 40 years so he recognizes that we don't sit well with dogma and need more of a practical approach than monks who live in a monastary their whole life and need that stimulation. that's the whole problem I feel. we aren't monks. we need whatever works, and whatever works fast. without needing to memorize irrelevant data.

 

you are right indeed that the methods of Vajrayana are wonderful. and I think that it is possible to remain grounded and still practice Tibetan Buddhism. but I do agree that the tradition needs reform, and it is happening. Namkhai Norbu is one example, i'm sure there are other teachers that are doing the same.

kind of a stupid quote imo since physics is constantly changing and quantum physics didn't even exist prior to the 1940s, now you have mathemetical extrapolations which border on metaphysical reasoning. except mysticism hasn't change at all. the core of mysticism has not been changing really. what will science say 100 years from now? who cares.

 

Gosh, if it's such a stupid quote, I'm really glad I'm not the author. Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should dispense with science, math... hell, let's just get rid of numbers altogether and focus instead on levitation and astral projection.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

you are right indeed that the methods of Vajrayana are wonderful. and I think that it is possible to remain grounded and still practice Tibetan Buddhism. but I do agree that the tradition needs reform, and it is happening. Namkhai Norbu is one example, i'm sure there are other teachers that are doing the same.

 

 

I do agree Michael. At the same time, the teachers shouldn't cator too much to our immediate gratification syndrome that resembles raging, craving crack heads surrounding TV in fluxed spoon fed addictions like moral rape music and self generated, simple happiness decay (as in falling for happiness through complex desire). Our Western Popular culture does need to be eased into a higher standard of spiritual education on a faster level of informing, because of what we've been influenced by in the modern market speed of life. I guess it's happening in different ways. Also Michael, just because you got nothing out of "Words of My Perfect Teacher", doesn't mean someone else here in the West did not. You know? I as well found it hard to read past half the book though.

[mat black]

You're right. I am my only teacher.

Wow!!! it is a dangerous and silly thing to say. It does not make any sense at all.

 

.......so have you completely ended birth and death? & attained omniscience?

Only those who have attained Buddhahood, Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi no longer need a teacher.

Edited September 18, 2009 by mat black

[Vajrahridaya]

Gosh, if it's such a stupid quote, I'm really glad I'm not the author. Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should dispense with science, math... hell, let's just get rid of numbers altogether and focus instead on levitation and astral projection.

 

Honestly... it's possible. You'd be surprised, if you actually put tons of time into researching how it's done through yogic science. It can be learned.

 

But... of course, maybe your too science and 5 sense dogmatic?

 

No really... I like the happy medium. I just know what's possible outside of popular consensus through direct experiencing. Your reality is my fantasy.

 

 

Wow!!! it is a dangerous and silly thing to say. It does not make any sense at all.

 

.......so have you completely ended birth and death?...........if so, even that does not guarantee one has attained omniscience, and hence still requires a teacher.

Only those who have attained Buddhahood, Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi no longer need a teacher.

 

I do agree! It's kind of a popular Western disease, thinking that I alone AM, and it's I against the cosmos. Or, I..... no, IIIII will find the TRUTH!!!

 

That I is interdependent and thus dependent on all others for existence to begin with. Where in history does anyone truly exist on their own merits? ... not one person!

 

If you want to be a good cook, you learn from others, and then integrate it individually of course. It's the same with spirituality. Except it's more profoundly true how much one really needs some objective information from an outside source that see's right through one's own hidden pride.

[Sunya]

Gosh, if it's such a stupid quote, I'm really glad I'm not the author. Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should dispense with science, math... hell, let's just get rid of numbers altogether and focus instead on levitation and astral projection.

 

no i'm saying you shouldn't bunch mystics in with physicists when the former have actual insight and the latter are only using the brain to figure out what's going on. and the theories keep changing too. so I still don't understand how metaphysics is for people who are too lazy to study physics? when most metaphysics is grounded in experience not a constantly changing theory. its as if people who worship science and insult philosophy don't understand that science without philosophy is empty. you can't have it. how do you think physicists interpret their 'findings'? through philosophy. there are certain assumptions. theres no such thing as objectivity in the realm of science because there will always be philosophical assumptions; or else there would be no interpretation.

 

I do agree Michael. At the same time, the teachers shouldn't cator too much to our immediate gratification syndrome that resembles raging, craving crack heads surrounding TV in fluxed spoon fed addictions like moral rape music and self generated, simple happiness decay (as in falling for happiness through complex desire). Our Western Popular culture does need to be eased into a higher standard of spiritual education on a faster level of informing, because of what we've been influenced by in the modern market speed of life. I guess it's happening in different ways. Also Michael, just because you got nothing out of "Words of My Perfect Teacher", doesn't mean someone else here in the West did not. You know? I as well found it hard to read past half the book though.

 

well i'm moreso talking about how our society is grounded in reason and logic and not blind faith. we need evidence and we need things to make sense. we need practical. thats just how we are.

[Vajrahridaya]

well i'm moreso talking about how our society is grounded in reason and logic and not blind faith. we need evidence and we need things to make sense. we need practical. thats just how we are.

 

Yes, but we really need direct experiencing that blows our 5 sense perception assumptions out of the water too. Which is I think what many high level Guru's are working on with us. Including ChNNR of course with his Rigpa transmissions.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Do you see the nimittas of the owrld and moon etc. as they were real hyscal objects when you are out of your meditations?

 

Thanks for the info markern, yes, there are many flavours to buddhist teachings..

 

Yes, sometimes the nimittas last for days. That is, it is like someone turned on a tv inside your head/third eye/inner vision and forgot to shut if off. I remember that one nimitta lasted a few weeks but that was when I was practicing kunlun level 1. It wasn't a pure nimitta. There is/was a sun, a huge dark ocean and a stone buddha floating over the water. Sometimes the nimitta clouds over after a few hours.

 

Lately I've added practicing 'sensing the inner body' via Eckhart Tolle and I"ve discovered that the more you let go, relax and sense the inner body, the more it causes lights to appear in the third eye. It also causes your perineum to pulse, sensitize and charge up (or something). During one sitting, I saw many multi-colored pastel lights in front of my brow (inner sight), and my perineum realeased waves of ecstatic conductivity up my body and out through the crown. .. Just by really relaxing and sensing the inner body and letting go!

 

I also noticed a few times in my life, that sometimes, if I am overtired, just before falling asleep, I will see a brilliant white light. When that happens, I am always confused, sort of like thinking that someone turned on the light in the bedroom. I think what is happening is you get into that same level of letting go (when you are overtired), and the light (which is a nimitta) appears..

 

In any case, I think the light is a good sign that you are getting deeper and deeper into stillness..

 

TI