Meditation people roll call!

haha

i just started doing this lately

i meditate on death

I did it from about 1990-1996. Really want to start up again now but it's a tough battle with hectic nyc life/40 hour job/dogs etc. The practice works for me, for sure.

(I learned tr@nsc3nd3nt@l m3d1t@t1on, but didn't buy into any of the other rackets M@h@r1sh1 and company had going. Just the med technique, a la carte.)

I am an irregular practitioner of vipassana, which I picked up about 10 years ago

I could try the irregular practitioner strategy. I feel like it doesn't help me much unless I do the 2x a day pretty strictly tho.

Is it something you can learn in class and then practice alone once you grasp it or is it better in a roomful of people? I find the latter is often true of yoga. Something about energy, maybe just body heat.

How best for a novice to aproach it?

Very quietly.

2 hours a day is just too much for me. On the other hand, its one of those things I know I would find worthwhile if I was more regular about it. However, it seems kinda selfish to do 2 hrs a day - it would deeply inconvenience my wife, and I'm pretty sure our baby wouldn't dig it either.

x-post

Is it something you can learn in class and then practice alone once you grasp it or is it better in a roomful of people?

I can only speak for vipassana - which does not require any other people at all once you've learned it. Other people don't really add much to the experience, yr all just sitting there being quiet.

I did it in a group sometimes during the first year. After that, always by myself. This particular technique is extremely simple. Supposedly it matters a lot that you have the right m@ntr@ which they give you, you aren't supposed to share it with others, etc. I assume the m@ntr@s all come from a limited pool of Hindi nonsense words and they assign one to you based on general personality type/body type or whatever.

Sorry for all the pr00of1ng but i feel there's danger of g00glers with this subject.

xpost Shakey-- I meant two sessions a day, each one is only 20 minutes.

I could never ever do anything 2 hours a day except-- err, what I'm ostensibly getting paid to do right now...

vipassana is recommended as two 1-hr sessions per day (one in the morning and one at night) - sessions shorter than 1 hr kinda don't have the same effect.

jeez I dunno guys. I'm probably gonna have 45 minutes a day max if I'm lucky. I hate capitalism.

David Lynch does the TM 20-minutes a day thing. I've never done TM - I'm averse to mantras and gurus and whatnot.

I've been meditating seriously for fifteen-plus years. The technique I use mostly is to lie prone and experience my body as an energy field. The mind can sense any areas of the body where energy is concentrated/built up and you can, in a sense, put yourself inside that space where the energy is built up in order that it may dissipate around you. Another way to disperse energy is to imagine something like an acupuncture needle being stuck inside these pockets of energy, creating a hole through which the energy can escape.

The point of dispersing pent up energy, of course, is to allow it to go where it is needed. To balance oneself energetically.

Recently I've started focusing on the chakra wheels as well. I'm taking a class on chakras right now, actually.

Shakey, Yeah you do have to take the mantra part pretty much. But once you've learned the technique, you can just tell the TM industry to go have sex with itself.

TS: David Lynch vs. Doug Henning

Tim how much time do you spend per week on meditation?

i'd do what david lynch does

^ only half-joking

I'm actually always in varied states of being either in the spirit world or in this world. You get to the point where channeling energy is second nature - you're just constantly doing it. Lately, I've been going through an intense period personally and actually isolating myself and going into deep states has been necessary.

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question?

Haha, well, I mean to say that it varies. : D

Like, don't you have traffic or post offices in San Diego? Are you in deep states when negotiating those?

I'll visit San Diego, i think.

No, not deep states, but I'm aware of my energy and I can channel it.

The more you open yourself up, too, by working toward balancing your own energy field, the more access to your body and mind divine spirits have to help and heal you.

I can believe that. Soemthing similar happened with yoga when I was doing it regularly. If you want to explain it in those terms, that is. It didn't really feel like something divine was helping me, more like something internal and grounded.

We all have spirit guides who are with us at all times. They can work with your body.

Grounding relates to the root chakra at the base of the spine.

gygax!'s #1 secret myspace crush

Tim I am fascinated by your approach, especially being constantly in and out of such states. I wish I could meditate, as my mind is always so "busy". I can very easily imagine and get into a frame of mind where I can imagine energy and suchlike though. Curious.

Even apart from going into states of meditation, one thing you can do is to think about your muscles and just letting go of tension. The sphicter is the big one of course. The amount of energy released just by relaxing the sphincter muscle is great.

In medidation, though, it's dealing with the energy throughout the body, not just in muscles.

As far as the mind goes, the old analogy is that thoughts are like birds that appear flying through your mental space. We can always release them - we don't have to focus on them. It's in this sense that we realize that, ultimately, we do, in fact, choose our own thoughts and are in control of our own minds.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/dzogchen/meditation/fundamentals_dzogchen_meditation/fund_dzogchen_meditation_02.html

hey guys what'd i miss

I've been struggling to do morning half-hour zazen for a few months now; starting tomorrow I'll be regularly dropping by my local Zen Center in the early AM. To be honest I have difficulty sitting alone. I get a sense of strength from sitting with a sangha that doesn't come when I sit alone (though whether that feeling is 'strength' or 'it would be frowned upon if I aborted this session to go get a meatball sub, so I'd better stay on the cushion' remains to be seen).

I also do zazen in a hidden little corner of the library for half an hour during my lunch break.

I've heard positive things about Vipassana, but I don't really know anything about it. Any resources you might be able to point me to, Shakey Mo?

I figure my taiji and giqong count as meditation, when I bother to do them.

vipassana = www.dhamma.org

There is no hierarchy, no gurus, no theology, no religious dogma that goes along with it. There are no fees of any kind, it is completely free and open to everyone, and centers are staffed and run entirely by volunteers funded by donations. The meditation technique is what the Buddha himself practiced. I was also attracted to its combination of simplicity and rigor - the concept behind it is very basic but the practice itself is quite difficult (at least at first).

However, I should probably also mention that I did not learn vipassana in the US or in the presence of other westerners - I'm not sure what centers in the US are like, and I imagine you may find yourself in a class with a lot of annoying new age-ish "seeker" types and/or that guy from Weezer. Fortunately everyone maintains silence.

There is no hierarchy, no gurus, no theology, no religious dogma that goes along with it.

And no results! Ha, just kidding. ;)

With hand on bar, world is silent.

I got some totally chill book on meditation that helped me learn the following things: get comfy when you do it, ie a comfy chair or bed that you like & just close your eyes. Don't worry about emptying your mind or not thinking of anything. Don't worry if bad or negative thoughts come to you, just let them sift through. Don't worry if your mind is "busy," just let the thoughts fly by you but don't really focus on them or ruminate. Don't go into it trying to force some particular emotional state.

You can use a mantra if you want. For a while, mine was actually 'solve et coagula,' haha. Any word I want, not made up ones. It's like when you say any word over and over, ie "chalk" or whatevs, after a while it means nothing & can actually grow to be very amusing. Then I started imagining an image of a turtle & somehow that really works for me.

I liked the book because it was like building your own approach. Once you figured out ways that worked for you, just stick with them and don't act like there are rules & regulations. Or experiment with other things or methods or locations.

He also made the interesting point that if you get places a few minutes early, you have time to relax & never have the stress of rushing or being late, which is basically as good as meditating. Awesome.

a lot of annoying new age-ish "seeker" types

That One Guy That Shows Up in Sandals & A Tie-Dye Asking About "Generating Energy"

He should buy a gasoline-powered anything, or eat a pear, or go for a run...all of which generate energy.

Yes, he should take out his pocket knife and prissily eat a pear.

Haha, I live in Berkeley. Everyone is like this!

annoying new age-ish "seeker" types >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the guy from Weezer

Now now, Abbott. The guy is a bozo, of course, but going for a run spends energy.

It creates energy via the krebs cycle & vellular respiration, ie the energy which you then burn. Potential--->kinetic. Or I could be totally wrong.

I am imagining this guy as the New Age Retro Hippie from Earthbound:

http://www.rpgclassics.com/shrines/snes/eb/images/clay/newageretrohippie.gif

contemporize maaaaaaan

Hmmm - okay, I was thinking about caloric energy.

Do you guys really have experience with a lot of new age-oriented people ("you may find yourself in a class with a lot of annoying new age-ish "seeker" types") or is this just...stereotyping?

Experience with a lot of people who fall into this negative stereotype, I mean.

dude I live in San Francisco. My mom took me to Harmonic Convergence as a child. I went to school in UC Santa Cruz.

in = at

duh

Yeah. I just bristle a little at the stereotype because the only really progressive things going on spiritually in this country do still fall under the "new age" umbrella.

He also made the interesting point that if you get places a few minutes early, you have time to relax & never have the stress of rushing or being late, which is basically as good as meditating. Awesome.

this is major words of wisdom
i am always running late :/ and i try to breathe it out but what i'm really thinking is 'why didn't you just not run late in the first place?' rrgh

what book is this, abbott? it sounds like my kind of book

xpost

somehow i have managed to avoid a lot of those types. but i have also managed to avoid going to meditation centres and yoga retreats and things.

I don't disagree with that - obviously my own interests veer heavily into what a majority of Americans would consider "new age" or "occult" or "hippie" or whatever. Still, as far as demographics go it attracts its share of irritating people (and conmen, and dilletantes, and ignoramuses) just like any other religious community)

x-post

> somehow i have managed to avoid a lot of those types. but i have also managed to avoid going to meditation centres and yoga retreats and things.

Yeah, by attending a taiji school with a sifu who likes to mix it up a bit we tend to weed out the guys who think that 'martial arts isn't about fighting, it's about peace.'

Uh, what part of 'martial' is confusing you, man?

Now, I'm a wierdo who thinks that if you use violence for recreation, you'll be less inclined to use violence as a way of solving problems (except the problem of violence) but that's a whole other thing.

that is a rather odd idea

Allow me to elaborate then:

A few things about sparring -

It teaches first hand that might doesn't make right.
It teaches first hand that anybody can lose.
It teaches first hand that you never know what's going to happen.
It teaches first hand that what is unknown is especially dangerous and unpredictable.

Nobody values peace as much as an old soldier, right?

seems like a different thread, this idea that to practice violence is to learn not to practice it.

True enough. Sorry about the drift.

Do you guys really have experience with a lot of new age-oriented people ("you may find yourself in a class with a lot of annoying new age-ish "seeker" types") or is this just...stereotyping?

-- Tim Ellison, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:01 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Yes, I has experience. Most recently, a friend and classmate of mine gave me this to read, and very earnestly seemed to think that it would, like, blow my mind, man.

http://www.erowid.org/library/books/images/cosmic_serpent.jpg

Some insightful journalism, some truly laughable "science."

...anyway, point is: yeah, I run into/interact regularly with nuts like this all the time. And I live in MT, of all places!

What are the premises of that book that you thought were laughable?

Do you guys really have experience with a lot of new age-oriented people ("you may find yourself in a class with a lot of annoying new age-ish "seeker" types") or is this just...stereotyping?

-- Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 23:01

For the record I was describing an actual guy I encountered on my first visit to my local Zen Center.

Also I have been one of these people.

Not in a past life, like five years ago.

My wife works at a metaphysical book shop and I find the other people that work there and those that come in regularly to be, on the whole, very cool and extremely interesting.

You're 21, Hoos. 5 years ago is a past life.

lol for real

I don't believe in reincarnation, but I totally get 'death and rebirth.'

I've been doing - of and on, with a lapse of some weeks in between - basic "sit then follow your breath" meditation for about 3 years now. It's funny how much I miss it once I get back into it. I find that the end results affect me on more of a personal level so I can't get into eventual "benefits" or anything like that. Only that it personally makes me feel mentally much lighter than I would had I not done it. That's it. That's what I get from it. And I love it for that reason.

Why don't you believe in reincarnation, hoos? I'm not going to proselytize to you; I'm just curious why someone would definitively say, "I don't believe in it."

Didn't mean to sound definitive "it does not exist," but I don't think it could; the population explosion of the last century seems to rule it out.

Well, that's an interesting statement, but there isn't necessarily more life on the planet now than there was in prior centuries. Also, I don't know as that souls always necessarily reincarnate immediately.

Also, it's a big universe. : D

Tim, what to you indicates that reincarnation is at all likely?

Being close to spiritual adepts whom I trust and who have knowledge in this area. I don't personally have any conscious knowledge of my own past lives, but I have been given information about them and about why I chose this particular life now. The information made a great deal of sense to me and has helped me to focus a great deal on myself and on what I am doing.

i chant daimoku from time to time... i like the message behind it and it helps me refocus my energies (there's that word haha) to what matters in life, i.e. value creation, my place among the universe, etc.

i like "namu amida butsu" not because i believe at all in the tenets of amida buddhism but i love the way it repeats in my head. i guess that's what makes a good mantra.

Cosmic Serpent is a great book

the fact that DNA emits light did kind of blow my mind

excessively literal interpretations of reincarnation strike me as fairly ridiculous - what is this "you" that keeps getting reborn? how to explain the exponential increase in population (does reincarnation require souls jumping some kind of species barrier)? what is the point of having "past lives" if you can't remember them and need to pay someone money to tell you about them?

however, I am down with the laws of thermodynamics, so if you think about consciousness as a kind of energy (which can therefore never be destroyed, only transformed from one state to another) I can accept the idea that there's this constant field of conscious energy that keeps manifesting itself physically in an infinite number of iterations - but the individual identity, I don't see how that would figure into it. People's personalities and identities are shaped by the interaction of genetics and the environment. The idea that someone in the past was "me" in any literal, meaningful sense is patently ridiculous.

its one of those issues where terminology needs to be clearly defined - what is the "I" that is supposedly reincarnated. One of the things that's become clear to me from meditation (and various readings of Buddhism) is that there is no "I", really.

Well that's what bothers me about modern Buddhism, and particularly branches that really dwell on reincarnation. The Buddhas message was one of letting go of the self in order to escape suffering, and yet here we are concerning ourselves almost non-stop with where our 'self' has been and where it is going. It seems contradictory.

> if you think about consciousness as a kind of energy

My (pop-sci level) understanding of current cognitive science developments is that thinking and consciousness and emotion and creativity and all that stuff that we consider the soul or self or whatever generally is about completely chemically explicable.

Or put another way - there is no body/mind divide. The mind is a product of the body, specifically the brain, and that's about all there is to it.

excessively literal interpretations of reincarnation strike me as fairly ridiculous

you know, you can say that, but then are you also saying that people who do have illuminations about the subject also strike you as fairly ridiculous?

not sure what a less "literal" interpretation of reincarnation might involve.

Just in terms of reasoning through it it simply doesn't make sense to me is all. Could be that it happens, but I have no rational model which tells me it is possible.

> not sure what a less "literal" interpretation of reincarnation might involve.

The whole "Lion King" circle of life returning to the environment as wormfood and nourishing future generations with your body (and if you're lucky) your genes and thoughts thang.

Yes. That's why I have babies.

Oilyrags I don't disagree about the mind/body divide, but that's pretty reductionist. Sure its all chemicals/biology at work, but don't kid yourself that modern science has any notion about HOW the mind actually works - we don't even have an explanation for how the mind processes visual signals from the eye.

altho OTM about what I meant by a less literal version of reincarnation (ie, one that doesn't emphasize discrete personalities and encourage "I was once Queen of Babylon!"-type wish-fulfillment baloney)

x-post

But ... I WAS once the Queen of Babylon.

If you're just going to call all insight about past lives "baloney," it's silly for me to continue with the conversation.

Frankly, you seem hung up to me about demographics of people whom you deem to be idiotic and charlatans (i.e., "what is the point of having "past lives" if you need to pay someone money to tell you about them?").

well okay let's start at the beginning. What is the "I" that is purportedly reincarnated.

The soul. I don't have much insight for you beyond that.

let me put it another way, what unique characteristics do your current incarnation and whatever past incarnations you have had share, and in what way can they be defined as a consistent and, most importantly, unique personality/identity.

consider the classic zen excercise of discovering the impossibility of defining an object (ie, they show you a chair and ask you to describe it and then point out the deficiencies in each and every possible description)

holy shit this thread

I believe you mean "holy shit OHM this thread"

From how I understand it, we choose lives as a means of evolving from positions held in previous lives. The existence of the soul is "consistent" simply in the sense of its own continued existence, but using words like "identity" and "personality" are probably not so helpful in explaining how things operate on the spiritual level.

are you a scientologist?

Me? I'm a Movementarian.

Yeah, see, I shouldn't bother. That comment is upsetting to me. I'm merely interested in spirituality, have spent a good part of my life in meditation, and have had certain experiences in life.

x-post

I have been trying to think of a way of asking this that doesn't come off as immediately dismissive, because I don't want to be dismissive in that way, because this discussion is touching on topics that I find strange and alien but which I find interesting because so many people think it's important. But this has been really bugging me, so I'll ask:

Yeah. I just bristle a little at the stereotype because the only really progressive things going on spiritually in this country do still fall under the "new age" umbrella.

How can spirituality be "progressive"? What do you mean by that?

(Also I more or less agree with where Shakey is going with this argument but definitions don't work like that! Although I've never heard of such a Platonic Zen exercise.)

Tim if specific souls are being reincarnated over and over that implies that they have discrete characteristics that distinguish them from one another - so, what are these characteristics? (ie, what is the "we" in your "we choose lives" statement?)

Well, that's an interesting statement, but there isn't necessarily more life on the planet now than there was in prior centuries. Also, I don't know as that souls always necessarily reincarnate immediately.

-- Tim Ellison, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:42 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Link

where did this life initially come from?

I only meant "progressive" in terms of actually seeking out growth, truth, etc. We are a culture that is fairly spiritually bankrupt so I see "new age" mysticism - and I think there's a lot of good in it but certainly don't dismiss the idea that there might be a lot of bad at the same time - as really the only kind of umbrella where people are at least considering the whole subject.

Shakey, I'm afraid I don't have the insight to answer that question. I do think it's an attempt to answer scientifically what mystics have known implicitly throughout the ages, though.

x-post - life evolved on the planet Earth - what is your point?

Tim, if you could give us some kind of logical argument that would suggest that reincarnation of a 'soul' was at all possible, that would be interesting. Otherwise, saying that it's true because someone told you it was is not convincing to me.

Tim I'm with you, bro.

keep ya head up

I mean I have an easier time accepting the idea that we're all incarnations of a limited number of archetypes (ie, 12 astrological signs, or the Hindu trinity, or Greek or Voodoo gods, or whoever), because those personalities are constructed around discrete concepts (science, music, war, love, etc.). But individual human personalities (ie, you and me) aren't like that - we aren't archetypes, we aren't larger-than-life concepts.

x-post

I do think it's an attempt to answer scientifically what mystics have known implicitly throughout the ages, though.

I don't consider it knowledge if it can't be independently verified.

Well, let's not get into a semantic debate. You can call it "insight" if you want.

Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors Melinda Wenner
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com
Fri Apr 6, 9:25 AM ET

People who believe they have lived past lives as, say, Indian princesses or battlefield commanders are more likely to make certain types of memory errors, according to a new study.

The propensity to make these mistakes could, in part, explain why people cling to implausible reincarnation claims in the first place.

Researchers recruited people who, after undergoing hypnotic therapy, had come to believe that they had past lives.

Subjects were asked to read aloud a list of 40 non-famous names, and then, after a two-hour wait, told that they were going to see a list consisting of three types of names: non-famous names they had already seen (from the earlier list), famous names, and names of non-famous people that they had not previously seen. Their task was to identify which names were famous.

The researchers found that, compared to control subjects who dismissed the idea of reincarnation, past-life believers were almost twice as likely to misidentify names. In particular, their tendency was to wrongly identify as famous the non-famous names they had seen in the first task. This kind of error, called a source-monitoring error, indicates that a person has difficulty recognizing where a memory came from.

Power of suggestion

People who are likely to make these kinds of errors might end up convincing themselves of things that aren’t true, said lead researcher Maarten Peters of Maastricht University in The Netherlands. When people who are prone to making these mistakes undergo hypnosis and are repeatedly asked to talk about a potential idea—like a past life—they might, as they grow more familiar with it, eventually convert the idea into a full-blown false memory.

This is because they can’t distinguish between things that have really happened and things that have been suggested to them, Peters told LiveScience.

Past life memories are not the only type of implausible memories that have been studied in this manner. Richard McNally, a clinical psychologist at Harvard University, has found that self-proclaimed alien abductees are also twice as likely to commit source monitoring errors.

Creative minds

As for what might make people more prone to committing such errors to begin with, McNally says that it could be the byproduct of especially vivid imagery skills. He has found that people who commonly make source-monitoring errors respond to and imagine experiences more strongly than the average person, and they also tend to be more creative.

“It might be harder to discriminate between a vivid image that you’d generated yourself and the memory of a perception of something you actually saw,” he said in a telephone interview.

Peters also found in his study, detailed in the March issue of Consciousness and Cognition, that people with implausible memories are also more likely to be depressed and to experience sleep problems, and this could also make them more prone to memory mistakes.

And once people make this kind of mistake, they might be inclined to stick to their guns for spiritual reasons, McNally said. “It may be a variant expression of certain religious impulses,” he said. “We suspect that this might be kind of a psychological buffering mechanism against the fear of death.”

(and btw I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of mystics in various disciplines who have no use for the concept of reincarnation - which is specifically Hindu in origin and was subsequently adapted to Buddhism)

and btw yr gonna find me easier to deal with than ethan, Itellyawhat

x-post

It's not a semantic debate though. It's a key cleavage between two concepts - scientific knowledge and belief.

I have to go get acupuncture! Sending vibes out now to balance ILX karma before I go.

x-post - I understand, but the spiritual insights we're talking about often go beyond what you mean by "belief" and into areas of actual experience and practice

Like Shakey professed an interest in the "occult" earlier. Is this merely because "occult" is cooler than "new age?" Are occult experiences more scientifically verifiable than new age experiences?

I don't see that having anything to do with anything.

well that IS a semantic debate, and I wouldn't say I've had any "occult experiences", unless you count reading a bunch of books, meditating, being fascinated with tarot, watching Jodorowsky perform his "psychomagic" etc.

"Occult" as a descriptive term just has different connotations than "new age", though they often overlap in terms of subject matter and who they're marketed to.

like, goths are into the "occult", middle aged hippie moms are into "new age", knowhutimean

But naturally your interest in the subject is predicated on the idea that people actually have had "occult experiences," yes?

Watts relates this helpful Zen tale:

A monk said to Master Bodhidharma, "Master, I can't find peace of mind. Please help me."

Bodhidharma said, "Place your mind before me and I'll pacify it."

The monk said, "When I look for my mind, I cannot find it."

Bodhidharma said, "There, I've pacified it for you."

-- wanko ergo sum, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:10 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

I dunno Tim what do you consider an "occult experience"...? Some experiences, like hallucinating during a ritual and gaining insight from it, seem perfectly valid (not to mention scientifically explicable) to me.

This anecdote always made plenty of sense to me:

One day it was announced by Master Joshu that the young monk Kyogen had reached an enlightened state. Much impressed by this news, several of his peers went to speak to him.

"We have heard that you are enlightened. Is this true?" his fellow students inquired.

"It is," Kyogen answered.

"Tell us," said a friend, "how do you feel?"

"As miserable as ever," replied the enlightened Kyogen.

Crowley, for example, performed the Rites of Eleusis in public in the UK in the early 1900s, and I'm sure that was a pretty intense experience for many of the participants. On the other hand, Crowley also makes all kinds of wild and contradictory claims and was undeniably an unreliable charlatan in many respects, I don't accept all of his purported "experiences" at face value. I do admire his propensity for research and his unprecedented attempt at integrating the various spiritual disciplines in the world and connecting them together by exploring shared systems of symbolism and practice, etc.

We are a culture that is fairly spiritually bankrupt

I don't have any sense what this might mean either, though I hear it often enough.

this thread is icky.

I'm not sure I really want to soil this thread with my opinions of the Cosmic Serpent and the sort of person that takes it seriously, but c'mon guys, seriously? Stuff is some armchair scientist bullshit, though the journalistic bits were very good.

I am down with the laws of thermodynamics

This is possibly my favorite line on this thread.

Well that's what bothers me about modern Buddhism

Though I'm sure you're aware, just for the sake of clarification, not all modern Buddhists believe in reincarnation (cf big hoos). I see it as a metaphor for the completely verifiable "cycle of life and death" that everything experiences regularly: cells degenerate, new ones take their place. Fruit rots, the seeds inside are ready to be planted. etc

btw for the interested Buddhism

Though I'm sure you're aware, just for the sake of clarification, not all modern Buddhists believe in reincarnation (cf big hoos). I see it as a metaphor for the completely verifiable "cycle of life and death" that everything experiences regularly: cells degenerate, new ones take their place. Fruit rots, the seeds inside are ready to be planted. etc

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:32 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

^^^ this, I can get behind. "Literal" reincarnation makes my eyes glaze over, and seems like wish-fulfillment and totally missing the point.

lol I started this thread

Narby is totally an armchair scientist and he's pretty up-front about that. I don't hold this against him - he's more Terence McKenna than Stephen Jay Gould. I still thought the book contained a lot of interesting stuff I didn't know (cf phosphorescent DNA) or hadn't considered before.

Oh no, I agree with that, there was definitely interesting stuff in there. It's just that the points he chooses to make with those neat facts are sort of spurious.

Also, I'm fairly certain everything emits light in the way he describes. Like, there's nothing totally unique abou the chemical composition of DNA that makes it more remarkable than any other sugar or whatever.

hmmm you are correct! wikipedia confirms that all cells produce bioluminescence along some range of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that most are not visible to the naked eye. weird.

I dunno Tim what do you consider an "occult experience"...? Some experiences, like hallucinating during a ritual and gaining insight from it, seem perfectly valid (not to mention scientifically explicable) to me.

I was talking more about what one might consider "occult" practices whereby one affects an outcome through means that are not scientifically verifiable. Do you believe all of these practices to be "baloney" also and, if not, are they really so different from "new age" practices such as visualization, chanelling energy, calling on spirit guides, angels, etc.?

er channeling energy

The Tibetan explanation of universe-creation is surprisingly a lot like the Big Bang + Evolution, but does in fact include reincarnation, although reincarnation does not include the continuation of a soul as most people probably imagine it, but the continuation of our basic elements.

There's a great book by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu called The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen that explains the beliefs of the different traditions.

I was talking more about what one might consider "occult" practices whereby one affects an outcome through means that are not scientifically verifiable

I've never witnessed anything like this personally, especially if you mean things like Crowley's claims of turning himself invisible or Jack Parsons causing a storm to force L. Ron Hubbard to return some stolen boats or any other number of stories about the use of "magic" to alter the physical world. I don't think the universe (and whatever kind of magic is in it) works that way - that seems like a really kind of crude and childish (not to mention selfish) way of looking at the world, as a contest of wills routinely violating the laws of physics.

HOWEVER, there are all kinds of occult practices meant to psychologically and emotionally aid the practitioner - I'm thinking of voodoo, or Jodorowsky's aforementioned psychomagic, but there are many variants - and these seem perfectly valid to me. The idea of performing a ritual to commemorate an event, or reinforce confidence, or excise personal demons, or heal rifts between people is perfectly legitimate, and I have definitely witnessed that kind of thing firsthand. You could say these practices "affect an outcome through means not scientifically verifiable" because they have to do with psychology and consciousness and symbolism and all sorts of things that science generally does not address, but I don't think that's what you were getting at.

I don't accept the majority of stories about past lives or ghosts or spirit guides or channeling or whatever because the explanations given are often vague and self-serving. I don't rule out the existence of something that could reasonably be called an "angel" or a "spirit guide" or a "ghost", but I think in many ways these are often projections of one's own psyche, albeit perfectly acceptable and perfectly functional. There are certain people that have appeared to me in dreams and at other personally significant moments in my life that I do think of as invested with a particular kind of spiritual role in relation to me, but I get the impression my conceptualization of these roles is quite different from what your average channeler or crystal reader or whatever would say.

Certainly occult practices are helpful creatively, and most of my interest in this area sprang from my interest in artists who took it very seriously: Maya Deren, Kenneth Anger, Jodorowsky, Italo Calvino, Page/Zep, Sun Ra, Fela Kuti, etc.

I have no doubt that there are things in this world beyond the explanatory reach of science (the human brain appears to be one of them, as are irreconcilable laws of gravity and quantum physics, etc.) and I have no problem accepting the possibility of the existence of forms of consciousness that are outside the bounds of normal human perception.

That's a nice post, but I will comment on this:

I don't rule out the existence of something that could reasonably be called an "angel" or a "spirit guide" or a "ghost", but I think in many ways these are often projections of one's own psyche

Surely there have been many instances throughout human history where multiple people have been conscious of the same spiritual manifestation. And there are mediums who can tell you things about your own spirit guides. Can we just agree that these people have gifts through which they have access to the spiritual realm?

And there are mediums who can tell you things about your own spirit guides.

This is the sort of thing which can be independently verified, then. You can find a few mediums who can tell you things about your own spirit guides and see if they corroborate each other. If they can do this reliably -- especially if they don't know that they are being "tested" -- then you've got some scientific proof.

Maybe some do. I haven't met any myself. And I'm not willing to confer legitimacy in such a blanket-statement manner. The spiritual market is rife with thieves and hucksters and has been ever since the first priest pimped out the first prostitute.

x-post

This is the sort of thing which can be independently verified, then. You can find a few mediums who can tell you things about your own spirit guides and see if they corroborate each other. If they can do this reliably -- especially if they don't know that they are being "tested" -- then you've got some scientific proof.

my drummer is currently attempting this with some past-life regression thing he's into. I'm deeply skeptical and told him so. He hasn't reported back yet.

I'm not making a blanket statement and I don't disagree that there are thieves and hucksters. Maybe you're right to be wary, but you're making this characterization about the "market" being "rife" with problems in this field and I find that problematic in the sense that this field has certainly been present and NEEDED in every human civilization since far, far before the beginning of recorded history and I REALLY don't think we ought to just wave it away. It seems to me that you're verging on blanket statements - or at least overzealous wariness - yourself.

I admit that part of this wariness is essentially political in nature - I have a deep-seated distrust of the conventional teacher-student/leader-follower dynamic and whenever I see it in play I get really suspicious.

I don't think I'm waving non-mainstream spiritual culture away; certainly compared to my more conventional friends and relations I am much more deeply invested and interested in it than they are. Most people I know don't follow any kind of religious/spiritual tradition and have no interest in the subject, much less its more outre manifestations. I don't share these interests with more than a handful of people, to be honest.

This has nothing to do with what you're talking about, but I think it's pretty cool that regular people can go to a firewalk or be trained to block out pain from needles and burning metal spears and stuff. I've never looked into scientific explanations of such things. Are there any? One book I read discussed and showed pictures of chakra piercing (or something), which is basically where burning hot metal spears are driven through the abdomen (all the way through from front to back) without pain and holes close up without scarring, supposedly. YouTube has a crazy video of Sufis pounding knives into their skulls!

my drummer is currently attempting this with some past-life regression thing he's into. I'm deeply skeptical and told him so. He hasn't reported back yet.

perhaps he has regressed completely into a past life and hence hasn't met you yet.

The technique I was talking about way upthread does allow you to meditate pain away, but only to a certain extent. One time I had a tooth pulled and spent a couple of hours afterward lying in bed meditating on the pain but it was super intense and I finally gave up and took the pain pill.

What you do is you go inside the pain. Then, the pain is no longer inside you - it's outside. But then you realize there you are in this new space in your body again and maybe your body is still registering the pain. So you repeat the process. But I believe that each time you make that move you are actually doing something toward eventually healing that pain.

i believe this is also called "denial"

Or you feel the pain as energy moving in a particular direction and what you do is allow it to move where it wants to go unrestricted. That can actually be a sort of ecstatic experience to ride on these waves of energy.

I think I hate energy.

i believe this is also called "denial"

You know, I was actually younger at the time and didn't really know how intense the pain from the tooth extraction was going to be. And also I have a lot of negative feelings about Western medicine that I've become a little less hardline about and that was part of why I didn't want to take the pain pill.

I know a guy who said pain is the same exact sensation as pleasure, just more of it and more concentrated. He claims to have undergone a root canal without any sort of anesthesia as an experiment with the help of a dentist friend of his.

I Tthink I don't trust this dentist friend.

just more of it and more concentrated

I think that's exactly right.

I wish I was a robot.

The grass is always greener. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRhHQM4eMXg

"RAVING ATHEIST: Many hardcore atheists like myself are wary of meditation, viewing it as religious or spiritual practice akin to prayer. How is what you're proposing different?

HARRIS: Well, the first thing to realize is that "meditation" is a word like "learning" - it can mean many things in different contexts. It is certainly possible to practice a kind of "meditation" that is indistinguishable from prayer, in that it rests on very dubious assumptions about divine agency, the supernatural, etc. Needless to say, this is not the sort of meditation I endorse in my book.

There are, however, many forms of meditation that merely require that a person pay extraordinarily close attention to the flow of his experience. There is nothing irrational about doing this. In fact, it constitutes the only rational basis upon which to make detailed claims about the nature of one's own experience."

> There are, however, many forms of meditation that merely require that a person pay extraordinarily close attention to the flow of his experience. There is nothing irrational about doing this. In fact, it constitutes the only rational basis upon which to make detailed claims about the nature of one's own experience."

OTM!

It was actually an article Harris wrote about Buddhism that made me go back to it.

Assuming that's Sam Harris.

By "pay(ing) extraordinarily close to attention to the flow of (one's) experience," aren't you actually altering the flow of your experience to focus on details that one would normally ignore?

Yes. You're paying closer attention to what you are actually experiencing, whether it be physical reality or thoughts that arise in response to physical reality.

Alternatively: Our mental lives are not "experience" per se. By extricating ourselves from our noisy inner dialogues we are in fact coming into closer accord with our own experiences.

Base! how low can you go?

I wish I was a robot.

-- Abbott, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:01 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

this is the only thing on this thread that i can get behind

isn't thinking you've extricated yourself from the noisy inner dialogue of the mind a trick your mind plays on itself?

I know a guy who said pain is the same exact sensation as pleasure, just more of it and more concentrated. He claims to have undergone a root canal without any sort of anesthesia as an experiment with the help of a dentist friend of his.

-- dean ge, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:58 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

this sounds cool but i don't buy it (the basic idea). the most intense pleasure i have felt was nothing like the very faintest pain.

I guess you're not one of them S&M dudes.

i drove by a truck that said "S&M Trucking" on it today!!

Can we just agree that these people have gifts through which they have access to the spiritual realm?

-- Tim Ellison, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

No.

Also, w/r/t this "pleasure" and "pain" business: are you trying to conflate the two (or put them on the same gradient or whatever) in the psychological/emotional sense, or in a purely physiological way, or both?

I was just addressing that question to Shakey, actually.

As to the pleasure and pain question, my experience in meditation is that pain is, as that person was describing, just this concentrated energy and when it is released you experience the energy in a pleasing way. From what I understand about energies associated with emotions, they are thought to vary in frequency. Someone that does reiki explained that to me once.

Sorry for being so antagonistic, Tim, I'm just a bit of a skeptic by nature.

Per your response to the pain question: I assume, then, you're talking about psychic/emotional pain as opposed to, say, the pain of getting hitting by a truck.

meditation definitely helps in dealing with physical pain (at least for me) - it helps to kind of divorce yourself psychologically from the physical sensations. Instead of focusing on how much pain you're in, you think about the nature of pain, how it will pass, that it is simply a temporary sensation, etc.

I assume, then, you're talking about psychic/emotional pain as opposed to, say, the pain of getting hitting by a truck.

Actually, both types of pain can be meditated upon and released, but like I was saying with the tooth extraction thing, there's only so much a person might be able to weather.

Consider the monks who quietly set themselves on fire and burned to death.

isn't thinking you've extricated yourself from the noisy inner dialogue of the mind a trick your mind plays on itself?

-- Granny Dainger, Thursday, 19 July 2007 04:26

As though the mind is really waiting around the corner chortling at me?

my fuckin mind, always playin tricks on me, I mean itself, I mean it, I mean... oh fuck it...

you could say that reality is a trick the mind plays on itself

I don't see what the problem is. You either are thinking thoughts or you are not, and are completely focused on the present moment. That simple. If focusing on the present moment is defined as "playing a trick on" oneself, then I guess that's what you're doing.

HOOS OTM tho - where is this dominant part of the mind that is fooling all the other parts

Experiencing the mind in it's basic state is the base. The nature of mind is spontaneous arising. Extricating your mind from noisy inner dialog is the opposite of your mind playing a trick on itself. It's experiencing the mind for what it really is (pure awareness) before it becomes distracted by thought. The mind is likened to a mirror. Reflections arise in the mirror and are part of the mirror, but are not the mirror itself. The color of the mirror is impossible to decipher because it is totally clear and limpid, but this is also why it is part of the reflection, though it is not the reflection itself. The two are inextricably linked and are only separated for purposes of examination. The most advanced meditation is everyday existence without losing this state of presence. The practice of "self-liberation" means to allow everything to spontaneously exist for its moment and spontaneously liberate itself into the next, without clinging or aversion to conceptual hankerings. So, one would be able to notice the arising of a desire without becoming overtaken with a fantasy or lust, remaining completely in control at all times, simply being aware and fully present in every moment, not continually forgetting oneself, as most people do about 99% of every day.

or something

And by the way when I first started meditating, it took me almost a year of almost nightly meditation to find that clarity for a prolonged period of time. But it is quite amazing.

I think my whole involvement with meditation and metaphysics in general is coming from a place of wanting to find a way to exist here in the West in contemporary society. It seems to me that Eastern disciplines (perhaps like the ones referenced on this thread), though, are techniques that, in order to obtain real results, ultimately require the kind of seriously austere and disciplined lifestyle that is simply not possible if one is not interested in living a truly ascetic life.

That's why I think we need a "progressive" approach that goes beyond 1960s flirtations with the East. And, yes, that's what led me to interest in metaphysical practices and beliefs that fall under the "new age" umbrella.

whew. this thread. i only opened it to see if anyone else did TM :/

anyway. a lot of what jon lewis said is true for me too. i learned the technique more than 10 years ago now; i'm deeply sceptical about most of the trappings, but i have to admit the meditation aspect of it works for me. the mantra, from what i understand, is based on body size and shape more than anything else. hmm. whatever. maybe it's all balls. like i say: it works for me, on a basic level. that's all i need, or am interested in.

i let it slide for about three or four years and only got into it again recently when i got talking to someone else who practises it. i rarely do it twice a day; usually it's just mornings. today i got up late and didn't bother at all. but i genuinely feel it helps me keep a sense of perspective; sets me up well for the day in the morning, and can help me unwind at night.

YMMV, naturally. i'm no advocate; just a dude who's pleased he learned.

Tim, look into Dzogchen. It is seriously not ascetic. The whole point is that practice should not be separate from everyday life because what difference does it make if you can sit for a while calmly if you can't do it when it counts? There's a funny story before Dzogchen was recognized by everyone as authentic and ancient when a certain Tibetan buddhist accused a Dzogchen master by saying, "So you don't meditate, then?" and the Dzogchen master replied, "When am I ever distracted?"

Tim I assume yr at least marginally familiar with Jodorowsky but one of the big spiritual issues for him has been the rejection of various eastern traditions precisely because of their nihilism/asceticism. He doesn't accept that withdrawing from the world is a requirement for spiritual fulfillment.

x-post

...I thought many Buddhist sects (Zen, in particular) believed that withdrawal was not at all a requirement. That enlightment came from being fully engaged with the details of living.

Also: http://www.bozemanzengroup.org/

:D

I don't know how I didn't know about this!

Can I ask, though - is it a practice aimed at deflecting things? Is it a practice aimed at attaining a sense of detachment? Because I think those things are necessary, but only to a certain degree. I don't want a philosophy that's steeped only in a dogma of detachment. Ultimately, what I want is not to have to be detached or to be deflecting things that would otherwise hurt me. I want to progress into a mode of life where those necessities are much less of an issue - where the things that surround you and occupy your mind are positive and don't need to be deflected.

one of the big spiritual issues for him has been the rejection of various eastern traditions precisely because of their nihilism/asceticism. He doesn't accept that withdrawing from the world is a requirement for spiritual fulfillment.

Yes!

Was referring to dzogchen in my post.

I think if I was a monk I would find a very snowy, abandoner, freezing expanse and then like drink like crazy big bottle of chivas and die that way. You know, v. calmly burning to death. One-trick ponies.

Actually, Shakey, I listened to a Doreen Virtue recording about karma healing recently and she was talking about healing karma from past lives. Interestingly, one of the things she asked people to allow themselves to heal from was choosing lives of religious discipline involving celibacy in the past.

Tim, if you're asking me, Dzogchen is considered the Great Perfection. The ultimate teaching. Thereveda is slow and ascetic. Tantra is experiential and ascetic. Dzogchen is what you may be introduced to eventually, if you're lucky, by tradition, if you don't seek it out yourself. After years of asceticism, you may move onto tantric practices and deity yoga, mandalas and offerings, and then, if your master sees you have developed, but are becoming dependent on those things, will have you smash your mandala or whatever and move onto Dzogchen. There are all sorts of stories of realized practitioners who suddenly got up and shocked everyone by smashing their instruments and leaving or whatever. That's because they finally got past all those stages. If you start Dzogchen right from the beginning, you won't be asked to do 100,000 prostrations or anything. In fact, a lot of western Dzogchen students can be lazy and deluded about their development, because they're like "I'm above all that" without realizing they're not at all. All those preliminary practices of the lesser and greater vehicles are great tools for development. This is why people often warn against studying Dzogchen too soon. But, I say, if you've been reading about this stuff for a while, there's nothing better you could do than to read about Dzogchen. There are some classic works that just sort of split your mind open as you read them.

...I thought many Buddhist sects (Zen, in particular) believed that withdrawal was not at all a requirement. That enlightment came from being fully engaged with the details of living.

qft, viz various koans ala

MONK: What is enlightenment?
ROSHI: Have you finished your meal?
MONK: Yes.
ROSHI: Then go wash your bowl.

That's exactly what I was thinking of.

I want to progress into a mode of life where those necessities are much less of an issue - where the things that surround you and occupy your mind are positive and don't need to be deflected.

I neglected to answer this, didn't I? Yes, Dzogchen is exactly that. It is specifically NOT about deflecting things, actually. Everything "self-liberates".

From wikipedia:

In Dzogchen, self-liberation is achieved by discovering or recognizing one's own primordial mindstream and remaining in that natural state of primordial awareness in which all phenomena are experienced without creating karma through reaction, attachment, or conceptual labelling.

This is the kind of austerity I'm talking about - Don't create karma. Don't react. Don't become "attached." Don't label things.

Having come to believe in past lives and the idea that we chose the current lives we are living in order that we may fulfill particular purposes, I reject the idea that a lot of us should DETACH from these plans and desires.

I've been practicing for a while and I can tell you it's about as un-austere as buddhism gets.

HOOS OTM tho - where is this dominant part of the mind that is fooling all the other parts

the cerebral cortex.

Extricating your mind from noisy inner dialog is the opposite of your mind playing a trick on itself. It's experiencing the mind for what it really is (pure awareness) before it becomes distracted by thought.

are you really "experiencing the mind for what it really is" (let's disregard the tangled mess that "what it really is" is), or are you just *thinking* you are?

That wikipedia entry is misleading. In Dzogchen, the pervading feeling is that there is nothing to do. In all other forms of buddhism, the pervading feeling is that there is something to do. That simple shift in perspective makes a world of difference.

Whatever the position of the body is the correct one for integration with rigpa. Wherever the eyes are looking is where they are looking. Wherever the eyes focus is where their focus is found. Whatever arises in the Mind is already integrated with rigpa. The implicit instruction is that there is nothing either to change or to alter. There is nothing to do, nowhere to go, no practice to follow. If this is not immediately understood, questions are useless. There is nothing to ask because there is nothing to do beyond recognizing that you have never been anywhere other than the state of rigpa. If the practitioner is in the non-dual state, then of course there is nothing to do, and nowhere else to go.

Probably makes no sense, which is why I initially just said to check it out for yourself. ;-)

or are you just *thinking* you are?

As soon as you are thinking, you are not. But, if thoughts arise in the state of rigpa, you are.

"the pervading feeling that there is nothing to do" - in meditation or in life in general as a philosophy of detachment, not creating karma, etc.?

Dzogchen teachings go beyond conventional moral codes - including the principle of karma. The idea is that karma is not a mechanistic system of cause and effect but in reality an illusory manifestation of perception and response. This was very threatening to the religious hierarchy - and it still is. The sense in which karma was the 'form aspect' of pattern that played in relation to the 'emptiness aspect' of chaos was not judged to be conducive to maintaining social order. These teachings were therefore given in secret, as they were seen to be too dangerous for the general population.

Tim, in Dzogchen, the only thing you try to do is remain present. If you fuck up, big deal. Keep trying. Hard to explain, you know what I mean? Best to read about it because I can't do it justice.

And you can do all the other practices you want. It's not like you're supposed to stop ngondro or chod or kriya yoga or mantra or anything else that is working for you. But, the most common practices in Dzogchen are as simple or as complicated as you want them to be. That's why it's so easy to screw up, I suppose. For me, the studying helps, but I still do mantra and kriya and ngondro because I like it.

are you really "experiencing the mind for what it really is" (let's disregard the tangled mess that "what it really is" is), or are you just *thinking* you are?

-- Granny Dainger, Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:50 PM

It seems to me that you're trying to get Humean on perception by interpreting perception itself as a mental process. Am I right?

Btw guys I think it's really cool that an ILX thread on meditation has gotten so many responses.

Dzogchen teachings go beyond conventional moral codes - including the principle of karma. The idea is that karma is not a mechanistic system of cause and effect but in reality an illusory manifestation of perception and response.

I'm sympathetic to this and I think it's in accord with that Doreen Virtue meditation I was talking about before - allowing one to release karma. The principle difference still seems to me to be that the dzogchen philosophy is still proferred within the Buddhist principle of not acting and thus not accruing the karma (whether it's illusory or not) in the first place.

the Buddhist principle that advocates not acting, I should say

I've never heard of Doreen Virtue. I'll have to check that out.

Maybe bookmark for some time when you really got a lot of time on your hands :)
http://www.mandala.hr/1/groundpathfruit.html
There is some information on nonaction under the heading "Ground, Path and Fruition."

Uh... I didn't notice that "Ground, Path and Fruition" also happens to be the title of the full article. I meant, scroll down about halfway and there's another section with the same header title.

here's a simple one. sit somewhere quiet, in a comfortable poistion. close your eyes, and try to turn your brain off for two minutes. do not have a single thought for two minutes. If you can do this, you're pretty damn good. a trick that might help is to concentrate on a subtle physical feeling you might have, like your arm resting on your leg, or something like that. It's amazing how long 2 minutes can be (when you're not on ILX, hehehehehe)

are you really "experiencing the mind for what it really is" (let's disregard the tangled mess that "what it really is" is), or are you just *thinking* you are?

-- Granny Dainger, Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:50 PM

What I'm really driving at here is that we can play the "are you really ... or are you just THINKING ..." game all day. When one is really awake, though, it can't be expressed in words (or thoughts).

MONK: What is the living meaning of Zen?
ROSHI: The cypress tree in the courtyard.

The Prajnaparamita Sutra says:
Regarding mind:
Mind does not exist,
Its expression is luminosity.

I just started doing this. Granted I'm in the total beginning stages, i.e. "shut up for five minutes", so I'm not feeling that enlightened yet, but it is fun to imagine breathing through your forehead.

What I'm really driving at here is that we can play the "are you really ... or are you just THINKING ..." game all day. When one is really awake, though, it can't be expressed in words (or thoughts).

My point (if I have one at all. I'm not really as dogmatic about this as it may appear) is that "are you really" and "are you just THINKING" are identical. You can try to use your mind in different ways, to process sensation differently, but you'll always be bound to it. Of course perception is a mental process, how can it not be? Any experience that feels otherwise is an illusion (I don't get the har hars upthread in response to the brain playing a trick on itself. Perception is nothing but this!). There's something to be said for meditation, and if it helps you in anyway, I'm glad. I just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience that quasi-religious gobbledygook thrown on top of it.

Nobody should doubt perception is a mental process. In my post Granny originally responded to, I said that mind and nature of mind were inextricably linked (interdependent) and only to be separated for examination. Now, the question remains, "what is 'thinking?'" And how does examination of this question relate to the passage from the prajnaparamita:
Regarding mind:
Mind does not exist,
Its expression is luminosity.

Taken in conjunction with my comments on 'the mirror' above, this means that the mind's expression is nothing more than the reflection of things, which are all interdependent expression of the void. As all things do not exist in and of themselves, but as interdependent unity, Mind itself is the illusion of selfhood which buddhism denies. Try to explain what the mind is, what thinking is, and you wind up with empty definitions ad infinitum, a series of assumptions based on definitions for convenience which sum up the delusion of duality. Mind is invisible, clear and luminous like a mirror, which gives rise to reflection. This is the nature of mind. "Mind does not exist. Its expression is luminosity."

Mind itself is the illusion of selfhood which buddhism denies

This should really say "Mind gives rise to the illusion of selfhood..." Examining Mind and Nature of Mind in this way, gives rise to Nondual Awareness which eliminates the illusion of selfhood and is beyond thinking. GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SOHA is the Mantra of Wisdom of the Heart Sutra: "Gone, gone, gone to the Other Shore, attained the Other Shore having never left" or "Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, Gone Completely Beyond, Awakened. So Be It."

I just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience that quasi-religious gobbledygook thrown on top of it.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 5:16 AM

We're in agreement, then!

I don't even know what that means.

HOOS OTM tho - where is this dominant part of the mind that is fooling all the other parts

the cerebral cortex.

lolz - consciousness does not have a physical center. the brain is a dynamic system with no central processor.

is there anything you aren't an expert on? all advance thought occurs in the forebrain is allz i was saying. lolz!

sorry dean, i'll try to put it in words you'll understand:
the lone lizard in the house of peace extends his vision to the noble warrior.

haha, that's funny.

The part I didn't get was this bit: just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience

I thought that's what reality was, scientifically speaking (a mystical energy field we only understand through experience).

...or maybe you'd like to rephrase that into a ludicrous strawman?

all advance thought occurs in the forebrain is allz i was saying.

I'm not a neurobiologist or anything but I have read enough to know that this kind of blanket generalization is not accurate and does not really describe how the brain functions. No single part of the brain functions independently of all the others.

what I'm getting at is that brain functions can't be compartmentalized as simply as that - for any given thought process, a bunch of different parts of the brain are going to be involved, even when some parts are playing a more dominant or central role. Current science has only the dimmest notion of how various brain functions are interrelated.

I just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience that quasi-religious gobbledygook thrown on top of it.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 5:16 AM

1. Reality exists.
2. Every moment we make decisions to ignore and escape from reality (that which is physically in front of us) and run into a little world in our heads. Rather than "he raised his voice at me," in our little imaginary world "he hates me and I keep doing this thing wrong, why oh why etc"
3. Zazen (that is, sitting on your ass and simply Sitting On Your Goddamn Ass, allowing thoughts to arise and disappear without following their Byzantine pathways) is a way of training the mind to focus on the present moment rather than scurrying away into safe and familiar imaginary corners. It's called "practice" because it's practice for applying that kind of focus and non-judgment to every moment in our daily lives.

Better?

kinda lacks the poetry of "the lone lizard in the house of peace" though

Yeah I gotta meet that lizard. I hear he's got great weed.

http://x53.xanga.com/5fbd957a67d33136696461/w100291663.jpg

Better?

Yeah, that was better. Who was talking about lizards and whatever?

Dzogchen meditation is actually called "contemplation" and does not resort to any reality escapage. It is regularly lived life with arising thoughts, existing reality and everything else lived in the state of rigpa.

A lot of people compare Zen and Dzogchen, like Thich Nhat Hanh, for example because they seem to be saying the exact same thing. There is a major difference between Zen and Dzogchen, though, which is lost on Zen practitioners.

I've seen Thich Nhat Hanh's books on Dzogchen before, but I'm not terribly familiar with the practice. What is the major difference? Put me in that minority of Zennos that almost kinda knows what he's talking about.

oh and re: lizard

sorry dean, i'll try to put it in words you'll understand:
the lone lizard in the house of peace extends his vision to the noble warrior.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 7:26 PM

Well, for starters, Zazen dudes stare at a wall and Dzogchen dudes gaze at the sky. ;-) Dzogchen has direct introduction to the natural state by a guru. Dzogchen meditation calls for the senses to be left in their natural state. Dzogchen has primordial reality. The differences go pretty deep and are hard to explain.

I wouldn't mind starting with a phonetic description of how to pronounce "Dzogchen"

The d and g are almost silent and it is dZog’ CHen (rhymes with the last name "OLDman" emphasis on the first syllable.)

Almost like tZojinn

what I'm getting at is that brain functions can't be compartmentalized as simply as that - for any given thought process, a bunch of different parts of the brain are going to be involved, even when some parts are playing a more dominant or central role. Current science has only the dimmest notion of how various brain functions are interrelated.

As simply as what? Obv different parts of the brain are interconnected! You seem to be arguing against something that you think I meant, but didn't actually say. (fwiw, I'm not a neurobiologist either, but I was a psych major and took several courses in neurobio. not like i remember much of it now though! But I don't think you'd get much argument from any respected neurobiologists that the what we consider higher thought is the exclusive domain of the forebrain, even though yeah, it gets input from all other parts. as well as sends output to the less "developed" parts. But this is all pretty much irrelevant, since i was just making a pithy wiseass respone to your pithy wise ass response)

It's called "practice" because it's practice for applying that kind of focus and non-judgment to every moment in our daily lives.

Doesn't seem like a goal worth attaining. Would be nice to have a switch you could turn off and on, though.

Well, if you stop to consider that judgment is the source of all dissatisfaction, it's pretty worthwhile investment. But, not if you don't give a shit to begin with, obv.

Doesn't seem like a goal worth attaining.

It seems we have some fundamental disagreements, then.

Thanks for the conversation, though.

xpost

If you start with the lesser vehicles, what Shakyamuni Buddha taught, you learn that "all is dukkha," (dissatisfaction) but in the greatest vehicle (the 9th), Dzogchen or Ati Yoga, you learn "all is good." Big difference! Shakyamuni started with what he knew people could relate to. People look for answers because they're dissatisfied, but their dissatisfied because of how their minds are wired. It's almost like that "jouney into pain" that was discussed above. The Buddha said everything is dissatisfaction and then proceeded to give ascetic practices generally thought to be pretty dissatisfying. And through this practice, we don't generally find a lot of dissatisfied monks. No, they're smiling their asses off, very natural and spontaneous, in my experience.

Well, if you stop to consider that judgment is the source of all dissatisfaction

see, this is the sort of quasi-religious, unprovable "fact" that turns me off the whole thing. i guess i don't like how that aspect of it has more or less turned so many people off of something which could be beneficial to people individually and as a whole.

It's not quasi-religious, it's fact. If you make the decision you like some things and not other things, you create dissatisfaction. And when the new wears off the things you like, you create more dissatisfaction.

that's called being human! i wouldn't want to be a robot who smiled perpetually and was just as content walking on a pile of broken glass as they were hugging their loved ones. trees are nice to look at, but i wouldn't want to be one.

You figured out the secret goal of buddhism: to be a smiling robot. And it only took, what, 2 days posting on a message board?

guys guys guys can't you tell we are clearly in the presence of an enlightened one

personally I would totally dig being a tree

btw, sorry everyone for temporarily turning this into a buddhism/dzogchen discussion. I know it's about all meditation styles and so I shut up now. :-)

that's called being human! i wouldn't want to be a robot who smiled perpetually and was just as content walking on a pile of broken glass as they were hugging their loved ones. trees are nice to look at, but i wouldn't want to be one.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 9:03 PM

I'd like to respond, but I honestly don't know what to say to this.

(not trying to imply your response is faulty or that you are dumb, just truly don't know where to begin)

Granny sees value in suffering, considers it essential to being "human" etc. This isn't really a new or unusual position.

(although in my experience usually the people making that argument are deeply religious)

most people I've met tend to be happy when they discover a new appreciation for something they thought they hated

guys guys guys can't you tell we are clearly in the presence of an enlightened one

no no, it's you man. tell me more about how the brain works, the economy of brazil, and who should die a painful death.

also please to not try to say what you think i believe. that's the my #1 pet peeve of ilx.

okay then please to explain to me what "being human" means k thx

(or rather, please elaborate on what you meant by "that's called being human" in response to dean ge's post about the root of dissatisfaction)

I mean I can sum up the "goal" of Buddhism (and most schools of meditation) pretty easily - to relieve suffering. There's nothing particularly "quasi-religious" about that goal, nor in emphasizing that all suffering comes from attachment (attachment to the body, to pleasure, to habits, whatever)

that's called being human! i wouldn't want to be a robot who smiled perpetually and was just as content walking on a pile of broken glass as they were hugging their loved ones. trees are nice to look at, but i wouldn't want to be one.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 9:03 PM

Up to this point I've been trying to clarify misconceptions about what zazen, my meditation form of choice, is intended to accomplish. I've done my best to do that and it now seems clear that we have more fundamental philosophical differences. That's fine. I'm not here to evangelize for Zen Buddhism and one doesn't change one's fundamental beliefs about the nature of human suffering due to arguments on an internet message board.

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to clarify how I believe zazen works, and for the stimulating exchange. This is where I bow out, if you will, of the conversation.

Gassho.

To a certain extent, I'm with Granny on this subject. Dean says, "If you make the decision you like some things and not other things, you create dissatisfaction." Liking something or not isn't normally considered to be a "decision" - it's an emotional reaction. The only decision involved is whether you're just going to let this emotional reaction go or not, following the Eastern premise of not reacting or that doing nothing is preferable.

Again, I'm looking for a way to live where I can, actually, enjoy the fact I like something. Or that I want to do something. I believe that I am here, precisely, TO do things. I know that there are ramifications involved in doing so, but the idea that these ramifications will always end up involving some degree of dissatisfaction or displeasure or pain is, I believe, extremely pessimistic.

I think you should look somewhere else besides eastern traditions, Tim.

Maybe sufism.

altho honestly I don't believe there is any way to really enjoy anything without fundamentally accepting that it isn't gonna last forever and that you will, therefore, eventually miss it (and thus suffer, be disatisfied, etc.)

I mean, time is unceasing and only flows in one direction, everything changes or dies, and therefore if you become attached to something, you will suffer whenever it does eventually change/die.

totally agree w/tim's 2nd paragraph there. more well said than i've been able to manage.
shakey, i didn't necessarily mean that without suffering one isn't human (though it the idea of someone never suffering is creepy in a brave new world sort of way), but more that being detached from emotional ups and downs (and plateaus!) seems like it would result in a less than complete human being experience, or at the very least make the sacrifice the full pleasure of the eyes in order to eliminate the full pain of the lows. I don't think it's a fair trade. Obv I am not nor have I ever been free of desire/judgment/whatever you want to call it, so maybe that trade isn't even a necessary one!

xpost
altho honestly I don't believe there is any way to really enjoy anything without fundamentally accepting that it isn't gonna last forever and that you will, therefore, eventually miss it (and thus suffer, be disatisfied, etc.)
see this is exactly the tradeoff i mean. missing something isn't all that bad! there is still a sweetness in bittersweet.

I don't believe there is any way to really enjoy anything without fundamentally accepting that it isn't gonna last forever and that you will, therefore, eventually miss it

If you're talking about emotional relationships with people, that's one thing. But if I listen to a record because I like it and then someone comes and steals it, will I "suffer" as a result? Does my "dissatisfaction" with the theft cause me to think that I shouldn't have "formed an attachment" with the record?

Talking about the Vision is like dancing about architecture.

:-D

Just kidding. I only wanted to use a fave cliche that annoys people.

But, seriously, talking about the Vision is fine and good. The reason it is generally translated as the "Vision", rather than the "View", however, is because "view" tends to imply a philosophical understanding (ie. "view" or "viewpoint") while Vision implies sight and experience a little more.

Most experts on meditation can argue logically and philosophically up and down about reality and the mind without becoming unsound in their arguments, but that doesn't give anyone else the actual experience of meditation or the result of extended practice. It might cause a cynic to reconsider or have him off to the library to see if he can prove you wrong, but unless a person has the inclination and determination to practice honestly, the fruit of the path can never be experienced or understood (or enjoyed!).

Liking something or not isn't normally considered to be a "decision" - it's an emotional reaction. The only decision involved is whether you're just going to let this emotional reaction go or not, following the Eastern premise of not reacting or that doing nothing is preferable.

This is dualistic thinking and if you're going to cling to dualism, you will not get very far. For example, a buddhist technique is to remove judgement from your experience and just let the experience be what it is. If you burn your hand on the stove, rather than jumping up and saying, "Ow, I burned my fucking hand on that goddamn stove!" and kicking it and then saying, "Ow, I hurt my fucking toe when I kicked that piece of shit!" just say (or scream), "HOT!" Thinking like this is part of the process of deconditioning conditioned thinking, which is considered dualistic ignorance. Beyond the stove analogy, all emotional responses are learned, conditioned dualism. So, you're right that you don't generally decide what you like or dislike, but you can essentially "learn" to by unlearning your "karmic pattern" (learned expectations). It starts with baby steps, that's for sure.

if you're going to cling to dualism, you will not get very far.

Get very far with what, exactly? With this deconditioning that you're apparently claiming to be the spiritually evolutionary path.

With what you said you're trying to do up above.

I am, actually, sympathetic to the idea of deconditioning conditioned thinking to the extent that your conditioned thinking is causing you pain. But as I've been arguing, if you feel that your conditioned thinking, as a part of your present identity, is serving a role in the decisions you make as far as what you want to do with your life, I believe that the rhetoric that you should let it go anyway because of the Buddhist principle that it's better to not indulge in dualistic thinking or that it's better to do nothing is restrictive.

Unless, of course, your true purpose in this life is to learn, specifically, those particular spiritual lessons.

My stated goal above was "to live where I can, actually, enjoy the fact I like something." Your assertion that I will not get far in the goal of actually enjoying something unless I decondition my emotional responses to things is inherently contradictory.

There are a lot of terms we're using that have multiple implications. Lower vehicle's "better to do nothing" implies asceticism. On the other hand, "nothing to do," which I have been discussing, does not mean it's better to do nothing. It means to recognize what you are doing while you are doing it and that is pretty much all there is to it. The problem is that a person generally does not. "Nothing to do" also does not mean, hey wowzers I'm enlightened already, think I'll go watch cartoons. It means that, technically, the nondual presence is ALWAYS there because that is reality, there actually isn't anything to "do". You do not accumulate "more energy" to achieve something or whatever. The realization is there to be discovered, called an "open secret."

I'm not a big fan of Ken Wilber for a few reasons, but this quote from wikipooja is good:

"Ken Wilber comments that nondual traditions:

"...are more interested in pointing out the Nondual state of Suchness, which is not a discreet state of awareness but the ground or empty condition of all states... They have an enormous number of these 'pointing out instructions', where they simply point out what is already happening in your awareness, anyway. Every experience you have is already nondual, whether you realize it or not. So it is not necessary for you to change your state of consciousness in order to discover this nonduality. Any state of consciousness you have will do just fine, because nonduality is fully present in each state... recognition is the point. Recognition of what always already is the case. Change of state is useless, a distraction... subject and object are actually one and you simply need to recognize this... you already have everything in consciousness that is required. You are looking right at the answer... but you don't recognize it. Someone comes along and points it out, and you slap your head and say, Yes I was looking right at it..."

Yeah, I'm with all of that until he gets to:

Change of state is useless, a distraction

This is the nihilism Shakey was referring to earlier. There's a difference between recognizing the spiritual principles being outlined there and to assert that the actions through which one lives one's life are "useless."

It's not nihilism. Changing state is good if you're trying to de-stress after a hard day's work. It's good for your general peace of mind if you do it every day. But, what is more nihilistic: the idea that you need to meditate in order to feel good or the idea that you can feel good while you're doing whatever it is that you're doing?

I'm not saying that either of those things are nihilistic. I'm saying that calling life "useless" reflects the inherent nihilism of a lot of Eastern dogma.

Does "All is Good" and "Great Perfection" sound nihilistic to you?

I didn't see where he called life useless, btw. I saw where he said change of state was useless.

1. Reality exists.
2. Every moment we make decisions to ignore and escape from reality (that which is physically in front of us) and run into a little world in our heads. Rather than "he raised his voice at me," in our little imaginary world "he hates me and I keep doing this thing wrong, why oh why etc"
3. Zazen (that is, sitting on your ass and simply Sitting On Your Goddamn Ass, allowing thoughts to arise and disappear without following their Byzantine pathways) is a way of training the mind to focus on the present moment rather than scurrying away into safe and familiar imaginary corners. It's called "practice" because it's practice for applying that kind of focus and non-judgment to every moment in our daily lives.

i like this, it reminds me of what i've read of cognitive behavioral therapy, where you can learn to change your impulse to feel all that self-doubt, second guessing, paranoia, etc. -- which is escapism in a way, because you're retreating into the familiar rather than just letting the moment stand and moving forward. our minds are full of these rabbit holes we constantly crawl into as a way of just "dealing" with the everyday, but too much of that isn't healthy and can lead to some fucked-up falling down level shit.

What 'get bent' just referred to and what Granny was referring to there is the 'change of state' Ken Wilber called "useless."

OK, I misread it.

"wherever you go, there you are," basically?

Anyway, I'm going to go get drunk now, which shows how ascetic my lifestyle is... ;-) There's a cool practice, btw, where you drink and remain mindful. Oddly, you don't get drunk. This is common in Vajra schools, so much so that alcoholics have a hard time with it. Chögyam Trungpa was an amazing example of this. He chose to live his life as a drunk, both to teach about clinging and dependency and to teach about mastery of the mind. He would be drunk off his ass, literally falling down drunk, but his mind would be sharp as a pointy thing. He was literally drunk all the time. Think about that if you ever hear him speak or read one of his books. His students used to carry him onto the stage, sit him in a chair and then he would give a profound lecture and answer questions, etc. There is a good video on YouTube where Krishnamurti is basically calling him a fraud and he just sits there calmly reflecting. Krishnamurti gets more and more adamant in asserting his opinions and Trungpa just lets him yakk on and on. Then, he offers a different way of thinking about the topic and Krishnamurti will cut him off and disregard his point. This is a televised interaction and Trungpa just sits there and says, "Hmmm" and frequently offers indication that he understands where the guy is coming from, but he clearly has no burning desire to correct him. It's quite wonderful.

To be fair, though, that's what a lot drunks do when you try to expound on anything.

getbent, yeah that would apply, but as I briefly mentioned above, there are some differences between Zen and Dzogchen. I think they're both great! Anyone more interested in the topic should check out the wonderful forum over on e-sangha.com.

riverwolf, good point ;-)

Actually it's on Google video now and since it's all about meditation, some may be interested (Krishnamurti starts off bitching about transcendental meditation and then can't stop himself):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871006181947402801&q=Ch%C3%B6gyam+Trungpa&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

There are so many situations in life where a person's emotional reactions to things are functional. Even if they are negative, they help get you out of situations when you need to get out of them. They help resolve things. Eastern philosophy, it seems to me, looks at these reactions as an indulgence and a weakness.

And that video, actually, is a good example of where this function is not being allowed to take place. It's supposed to be impressive that the drunk guy is sitting there and not reacting while the other guy is rambling on? It was noble to have not shown the dreaded "burning desire" to act?

That eleven minutes could have been spent more constructively. I felt that I could have been doing something more constructive than watching that video during the eleven minutes in which it elapsed.

Before I became involved with Dzogchen, I spent about a decade sort of bumbling around the spiritual market (whatever you want to call it) and I came across quite a few Western pick-and-chooser types who regularly lumped everything from the East as "Eastern," as if it was basically all the same stuff. One woman in particular liked to talk about how "wrong" the "Eastern" method was because it "avoided reality" and it was unrealistic. She claimed the goal of Eastern spirituality was an impossibility: to exist in nonexistence or to shun the material world for the spiritual. "But, they are inseparable," she said, "The material plane is part of life. Whether or not you believe we were put here for a reason, we are here and our experience is here. The sum total of our experience can be described as a result of a physical organism," and words like this.

Well, "Eastern philosophy" is not all the same and I don't know why people got the idea that it was so anti-life. I do know that hinayana buddhists' aim for cessation, nirvana, which they think they have a pretty good idea of what it is from the sutras. Mahayana buddhists aim for not only personal liberation, but the liberation of every last sentient being. Vajrayana buddhists add tantra. Pure tantrists do not study the sutras and attempt to achieve cessation through direct experience. This is often similar to Zazen schools which may have a full library of the sutras and other buddhist texts... but the door is locked. Highest Yoga Tantra (Atiyoga, Mahamudra, Dzogchen) puts all the other schools of buddhist teaching into perspective and, though perfectly sensible, can be seriously disturbing to those who are practicing in the lower vehicles aiming for some cessation they can only fantasize about based on the description in the suttas about what it is NOT. The explanation of the higher vehicles might not seem to agree from that perspective or might simply be disappointing based on ignorance.

My point here is that there are 9 different vehicles of buddhism with many schools of instruction. They are different approaches created for different types of people. If there are different types of people who take to different schools of thought and understand the goal in different ways and use different approaches to attaining the goal, how can it be said "Eastern" methods do anything without being extremely vague and generalizing? This does not even take into account all the other practices found in the east, like Taoism, Jainism, Vedanta, etc. "Eastern" philosophy?

That point aside, I don't agree with your estimation that "eastern" philosophy looks at emotional reactions as indulgence and a weakness, necessarily. They seem to be mostly about being happy, which is certainly an emotion. There are also practices involving dark or negative emotions which are intentionally indulged in for the purposes of healing and learning. There is a fairly recent book about this practice published by Chogyam Trungpa's student (so it's Vajrayana) through Shambalah Books called "Healing Through The Dark Emotions."

Other than this, I'm not sure what else to say about it. Emotional reactions are functional, for sure. They can also be debilitating and ruinous. Without lumping all eastern schools together, I will say that the ones I am familiar with are only about learning to control emotions rather than letting emotions control you, not eliminating them completely and not pretending they don't exist and not "wadding it up into a ball in the pit of your gut and pushing it down, down, down deep into a concentrated ball" so that one day you will explode. Emotions are a sign that you're alive. In fact, in buddhism, the human being is seen as a precious opporunity because we have the 5 poisons inherent to our experience, all of which are emotions which cause suffering.

so many typos...

It was noble to have not shown the dreaded "burning desire" to act?

No, it was impressive that he didn't have such a desire. This isn't speculation. I'm certain he did not. When the negative emotions are overcome, they are overcome completely. Things that may have at one time infuriated you now will only evoke your sympathy and compassion. It was impressive to watch Trungpa assess this man and try to discover what it was that he needed to hear without arrogantly trying to win a debate.

I'd like to chime in here and point out that dean is speaking from one particular Buddhist perspective, and that I differ on a couple issues.

As Dean rightly points out, though, we can't lump together "Eastern philosophy" and make broad generalizations about it. It's like lumping the Analytics & the Continentals together as "Western." It doesn't really tell us anything and denies crucial differences. Even within Soto Zen Buddhism there is much variation, to say nothing of the differences between Zen Buddhists in general, the Buddhist population at large, and the rest of Eastern thought.

And I want to explain in no uncertain terms (maybe for the first time, really) that "great vehicle" and "highest yoga tantra" as Dzogchen is called DOES NOT mean it's "better" than the "lower vehicles." The historical Buddha taught the path of renunciation. Ain't a thing wrong with that. It may be slower theoretically, but if someone practices the shit out of that path vs. a guy who studies Dzogchen but doesn't realize its beyond his capacity and never bothers to practice, the Dzogchen path is about useless here because it may only reinforce ignorance and introduce arrogance.

I very much appreciate you clarifying that, Dean.

No, it was impressive that he didn't have such a desire. This isn't speculation. I'm certain he did not. When the negative emotions are overcome, they are overcome completely. Things that may have at one time infuriated you now will only evoke your sympathy and compassion. It was impressive to watch Trungpa assess this man and try to discover what it was that he needed to hear without arrogantly trying to win a debate.

Why do you characterize the desire to engage someone as always involving a negative emotion? Wanting to engage in a constructive dialogue should not be characterized as the mere desire to "arrogantly" "win" a debate.

I apologize for the generalization about Eastern philosophies, by the way.

Much appreciated, though no apology necessary.

Why do you characterize the desire to engage someone as always involving a negative emotion?
Do I always do that? I don't mean to. I just meant that in this case, he sat patiently while a guy browbeat him for 11 minutes. Krishnamurti is a guy who's put out a bunch of books of eastern philosophy (I have several) and here he is showing contempt for this man in front of him, satisfied with himself, dissatisfied with a fantasy he's created due to his own ignorance and over-generalizing. Krishnamurti is someone many people look up to as a real "master" of a sort. So, here, we have reason to discuss the engagement in terms of relative negativity. Krishnamurti set up a strawman and started beating away. Trungpa rightly saw all the truth being expressed and didn't bother to try to correct him.

Thought and emotion from a dualistic point of view are similar to creating a little box and squeezing inside it. In reality, and in rigpa, a thought or emotion is like a cloud in the sky. Your mind is as vast as the sky and the little arising emotion or thought drifts on through and dissipates. In the "squeezed in a box" perspective, one loses all sense of himself and is entirely wrapped up in the box of his emotions or thoughts. But, if he saw how the situation really was, he would realize that he himself was the box which had chosen to form around a passing cloud rather than simply letting it self-liberate into its ordinary nature. Engaging a person shouldn't be about comparing cloudy obscurations or boxes, but taking a step back and enjoying the view. This is what Trungpa did. He said, basically, "Yes, I see what you mean. Try to look at it this way." But, he was talking to someone who immediately jumped from one box into another while smiling victoriously at his own intellect. This could be likened to the fact that you don't make love through hate. You don't engage someone by browbeating them and you don't lead by bad example. Or, you shouldn't, anyway, if you have others' best interests in mind.

Who's familiar with that other Krishnamurti, U.G.?

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/

From Trungpa's perspective, Krishnamurti is a barrage of clouds and Trungpa is the sky. Trungpa is looking at all the clouds for what they are, but he also sees that Krishnamurti has encased them all in suspended animation and won't let them go. So, he is concerned. Notice him on the edge of his seat, with interest, looking at the older man (who is, in reality, a child student of Trungpa's) and suggesting things. He is handing tools to the sky, so that the sky might find a way to pick the lock and free the clouds, so that they might self-liberate and dissolve and Krishnamurti might enjoy his true nature as the sky once again.

(yes, I know, lizards smoking pot)

i smell that new meme smell

It smells like the glorious (pot) clouds in the sky!

btw, I'm drunk. How am I doing? Anywhere near as good as Trungpa? ;-)

Ha I guessed as much.

Awwww.... so, no good, then? I feel pretty good. Chemical problems but otherwise okay.

You were impressively lucid, but given that you'd just talked about lucidity while drunk and going to get drunk, I figured you were drunk.

I shouldn't have. I don't really like it anymore and today my head hurts. I think meditation is a good alternative to getting drunk, unless you're getting drunk while socializing.

Dean, I understand the premise of the box versus the sky but I see it as a bit of a loaded analogy - "Why put yourself in a 'box' when you can be the sky?" Well, because, like I said, emotional reactions are functional. Choosing to act on them doesn't always feel so much like you've chosen to merely "put yourself in a box," but often, in fact, feels that you are taking a position as a means of creating a sense of liberation out of a situation or acting to fulfill a particular purpose or obtain a significant outcome.

Krishnamurti was not looking for compassion and sympathy in that situation; he was looking to be engaged. And maybe if he had been engaged, he would have been less frustrated and less prone to making arrogant statements.

Thought and emotion from a dualistic point of view are similar to creating a little box and squeezing inside it.

This is what I mean about the analogy. It's not only a box, it's a "little box" and you have to "squeeze inside it."

That said, I do myself often enjoy letting things go and appreciating the joy of the sky, as it were.

hi dere everyone i am in boulder aka my least favorite place having just returned from shambhala mountain center aka a place trungpa rinpoche founded that ive been going to my entire life; now leaking into ilx. xo cheers.

Wow, that's great, jhøshea! I finally have a place like that myself where I can take classes and go on retreats, etc. Funny to think that at one point all I wanted to do was read books and not get involved with any community and now it's more like I wish I had more time to go to the center more.

This is what I mean about the analogy. It's not only a box, it's a "little box" and you have to "squeeze inside it."

Of course, it's a little box you squeeze inside: it's just one tiny possibility out of infinite others. At the moment you grab on, you're lost. It pulls you away from who you really are into a concept or a feeling. You can still appreciate concepts and feelings without letting them become your whole reality. This is what living distractedly means, following a stream of consciousness without being fully present. Thoughts and emotions are the reflections in the mirror, the mirror is who you really are. The mirror gives rise to spontaneous reflections, but it is still the mirror. The reflections will constantly change, but the mirror will always remain the same. Becoming skilled at remaining present doesn't mean one sacrifices the benefits of instinct. "Flight or fight" gives a person at least two choices. If someone hurts "your" feelings, is it better to follow that train of thought and put on a suit of emotion, like the black Spiderman costume, that you will only have to extricate yourself from later or is it better to recognize that A and B are connected and self-liberate naturally?

Krishnamurti was not looking for compassion and sympathy in that situation; he was looking to be engaged. And maybe if he had been engaged, he would have been less frustrated and less prone to making arrogant statements.

I don't think this is accurate. When Trungpa offered even a little piece of information, Krishnamurti saw it with blind-colored glasses. He didn't want to be engaged, he already made up his mind.

This must be pretty cool in person, eh jhøsea?
http://www.shambhalamountain.org/images/stubig-mahakala.jpg

Of course, it's a little box you squeeze inside: it's just one tiny possibility out of infinite others.

As I've said, I don't like the analogy. Thoughts often feel more liberating than box-like. Emotions are energies that can be cosmically grand in scope. But, yes, these things are personal - they are of YOU and not of God. I am sympathetic to the concept of living with some sense of detachment from thoughts and emtions and realizing their place within the non-dualistic reality. In fact, I practice this constantly. But I find your stance much too absolutist and judgemental.

If someone hurts "your" feelings, is it better to follow that train of thought and put on a suit of emotion, like the black Spiderman costume, that you will only have to extricate yourself from later or is it better to recognize that A and B are connected and self-liberate naturally?

This is what I mean. Can this question be answered absolutely? You seem to think so. I feel that "putting on a suit of emotion" (once again, I dislike the analogy) is, as I have said, often functional. Following the emotion rather than feeling you need to always let it go as a matter of spiritual discipline often helps you get where you wish to be.

put on a suit of emotion, like the black Spiderman costume, that you will only have to extricate yourself from later

This is rhetorical as well. One always has to "extricate oneself later" from a particular emotional response that one allows to inspire some course of action? I hardly think so. Emotional energy more often dissipates on its own.

When Trungpa offered even a little piece of information, Krishnamurti saw it with blind-colored glasses. He didn't want to be engaged, he already made up his mind.

Given that Trungpa spoke only about fifteen words total, this is kind of hard to judge.

Not really hard to judge when K interrupted him without hearing the rest of what he had to say... if he was interested in being engaged, he wouldn't have chopped the guy's sentence in half and asserted it as more important than the second half. Trungpa repeated the phrase, but at that precise moment the video ends. Why? Because Trungpa made his point in about 15 words total. Whether or not K wanted to hear it is a different story...

Thoughts often feel more liberating than box-like.

So you see the appeal of living distractedly. Now, you don't have to wonder why if everything was supposedly always perfect we ended up in a position where we are looking for ways to live contentedly.

if he was interested in being engaged, he wouldn't have chopped the guy's sentence in half

Don't remember the incident, but people do that all the time! You seem quick to me to judge it in this case. Do you really believe Krishnamurti had no interest in engaging in an actual conversation? That he was entirely closed-minded to what the other person had to say and was only interested in "winning" and proving the superiority of his wisdom?

From the excerpt I saw, I would not have rushed to this conclusion.

x-post: once again, I dislike the vocabulary. if one is engaged with one's own life, one is living "distractedly"

Try watching the video again. Maybe you judged too quickly.

So you see the appeal of living distractedly. Now, you don't have to wonder why if everything was supposedly always perfect we ended up in a position where we are looking for ways to live contentedly.

I'm afraid I don't follow this.

Or maybe you did. Maybe you put yourself in a box by having that thought and will have to extricate yourself.

if one is engaged with one's own life,

This perception is the distraction I am talking about: "Engage".

By disengaging you live less distractedly because you never forget what's really going on.

You can choose to focus on anything. Focusing on God is one choice - often a good one. But I do not live my life viewing other choices as "distractions."

Or maybe you did. Maybe you put yourself in a box by having that thought and will have to extricate yourself.

I didn't have the thought, I merely observed and pointed it out to you.

You can choose to focus on anything.

Best to focus on what's real, though, and not get caught up in distractions.

What? You've got to be kidding me. You did have a thought. And you made a judgement. "I merely observed and pointed it out to you" - talk about arrogance!

No, the thought was the judgement. I observed it and pointed it out.

That's just engaging in silly semantics. Do you really object so strongly to the phrase "I had a thought?" "I had it" - meaning it came from me a la "I had a baby."

the thought was the judgement.

I don't think my post merited a coy koan. I was pointing out two things - you had a thought and you made a judgement. I didn't state that they occurred separately.

"I" don't "have" thoughts.

Thoughts come out of our empty cognizance. They don’t come only from the empty quality. Space doesn’t have any thoughts, nor do the four elements. Sights, sounds, and other sensations do not think. The five sense doors do not think. Thoughts are in the mind, and this mind is the unity of being empty and cognizant. If it were only empty, there would be no way thoughts could arise. Thoughts come only from the empty cognizance. Once confused thoughts have subsided to some extent, it is easier to recognize the clear insight of emptiness.

People have different personalities. One person may be very gentle, disciplined, and kind— but while he is just sitting there, you won’t know that. Another one may be very crude, short-tempered, and violent, but you won’t know that either while he is just sitting there. These characteristics only show themselves once a person’s thoughts begin to move again. When thoughts move, we usually become caught up in delusion. At the same time, our nature is primordially free of the obscuration of emotions and thoughts. Thoughts and emotions are only temporary. The actual character of mind is one of self-existing wakefulness, the state realized by all buddhas.

Yes, as I have said, I understand those principles. I still don't see the point of the semantics. You are an individual, therefore, using the English language, you refer to yourself with the first person "I." If a thought occurs in your mind, it is yours to do with what you like. You possess it, therefore we use the verb "to have."

My practice is thought-less because in the base there is no thought, and when there is a thought, there is no practice. You might say at times I am carrying thoughts, but I don't have thoughts. In moments, they have me when I am distracted. Semantics are the only way to point out and all one can do is to continually point out until it is "caught."

To carry is to have, at least temporarily. That is the reality.

all one can do is to continually point out until it is "caught."

As I have said, I caught it. In fact, I understood it before this conversation took place. All I can do is to continually point out my (first person possessive) thoughts on the subject, presumably until THEY are "caught!"

"All karma and conditions, causes and results are false. Meditators are prisoners of thoughts; they keep thoughts in a prison and are prison guards! All these intellectuals who debate don't realize they cast a net in the darkness. All these discussions are like a joke and a play, a weapon of words. All the sacred tantras are merely elaborations of one's mind. All these knowledgeable persons are meaningless - they know and have no experience. These great views are bubbles of words - all these things are meaningless and make no sense. The real condition cannot be changed. The real essence cannot be practiced. Self-arising wisdom cannot be obscured. When you realize, you cannot re-realize or try to realize again. So what is the matter? Who is complaining?"
http://www.ligmincha.org/program/description/tapihritsa.html

"Life is meaningless" = a nihilistic position.

Yes, it is. But, what has that to do with anything and everything?

I don't know what you're asking.

Well, what is the meaning of life?

There is no "meaning" to life. Particular things take on meanings as they occur.

So, is that nihilism, then?

So, when I am criticizing the assertion of life being meaningless as propounded in that quote, I am talking about the process of life as one moves through time and has experiences.

Because the assertion is that these experiences, thoughts and emotions are meaningless. Indeed, they are meaningless in relation to God. To assert that they are meaningless to persons is nihilistic.

When two people argue over something as a result of what they have "learned" and "think" they "know," when each only has a uniquely ignorant perspective, does that "engage" them with reality and provide them with "meaning?" Or are these people lost in developing thoughts which are ultimately meaningless and unsatisfying?

If a third person watching the debate sits silently and enjoys an ice cream cone, is his life meaningless?

The issue is that you insist on characterizing thought, in general, in negative terms. All thought represents an "ignorant perspective." These thoughts are not "reality." One is "lost" when experiencing thought. The only positive for you is God. Life is inherently negative.

There is a saying in Dzogchen, "To speak about Dzogchen to a thousand people who are interested is not enough. To speak about Dzogchen to even one person who is not interested is too much." I am trying to figure out if you are interested or not.

What about you sitting and watching the exchange in that video? Were you distracted by your thoughts and judgements? Would it have been better for you to have been sitting silently and enjoying an ice cream cone?

x-post: I am interested in the subject. I have offered viewpoints on the thoughts on the subject that you have shared here. It seems to me that you are perhaps suggesting that someone offering criticisms must mean that that person is not truly interested in the subject. If that is your position, I find it to be arrogant.

The issue is that you insist on characterizing thought, in general, in negative terms. All thought represents an "ignorant perspective."

Thought is an incomplete perspective.

These thoughts are not "reality."

They are reality, but they are not a complete picture of reality.

One is "lost" when experiencing thought.

One is distracted by an incomplete perspective.

The only positive for you is God.

I don't believe in God, actually.

Life is inherently negative.

Life is inherently neutral.

What about you sitting and watching the exchange in that video? Were you distracted by your thoughts and judgements?

Not really, although I was drunk, so maybe a little bit. Contemplation is different from becoming one with thought, which is how thought is generally experienced. There are two truths: relative and absolute truth. Even Dzogchen masters write books and make judgements, but this comes from a state of rigpa. After direct introduction to this state, one has a "taste" and never forgets it. The life's work then is to remain solid in this state without becoming distracted. In this state, thoughts arise, sense experiences are enjoyed and emotions are felt all without losing track of the "one taste."

Would it have been better for you to have been sitting silently and enjoying an ice cream cone?

Possibly.

Thought is an incomplete perspective.

Earlier, you used the term "ignorant perspective."

They are reality, but they are not a complete picture of reality.

I was responding to the question you phrased in this way: "When each only has a uniquely ignorant perspective, does that "engage" them with reality and provide them with "meaning?"

Life is inherently neutral.

That is not the sense that one gets from your perspective when you make statements characterizing most human activity as "people lost in developing thoughts which are ultimately meaningless and unsatisfying?"

(Question mark should not have been there.)

IMO, "ignorant" and "incomplete" are both accurate. And thoughts are certainly real. For example, someone with a scowling face might cut you off on the sidewalk and you might think, "God, what an asshole!" and you might begin thinking about all the people who do this to you everyday and you might get pretty upset. You might vow to knock down the next "asshole" that disrespects you this way. When the reality might be that someone was squinting because the sun was in his eyes and didn't see you, thus the "scowl" and thus the "offense." This would make your previous assessment of the situation both ignorant and incomplete. Nevertheless, these thoughts are real. They are reflections of reality. In fact, reality is nothing but one big reflection spontaneously arising in the mirror of your mind.

OK, but you have purposefully chosen an instance of misunderstanding to illustrate the assertion that all thought is "ignorant."

Can you think of one example of thought which does not ultimately show incomplete reality and ignorance?

Why must you use the term "ignorance?" I believe it to reflect elements of nihilism in the dogma. I am fine with "incomplete."

Dean was more enlightened when he was drunk.

If the state of rigpa is true awareness, anything else must be a state of ignorance, because ignorance means "unaware." If you are experiencing the incompleteness of thought as "reality" then you are unaware of a simultaneous presence occurring right under your nose. It is this presence which experiences thought, but it is not thought itself. It is a shock to "see" and it is incredibly difficult to show because in truth it is invisible and only conceptualized symbolically. Like all of our experience, it takes "form" as an incomplete "picture" to our thinking, rational mind, but in the experience itself no words or symbols are needed. Symbols are, in fact, seen to be spontaneously arising aspects of the void. All we know of reality is what we perceive, but our perception is all wrong. You could say it's "inside-out".

Dean was more enlightened when he was drunk.

Maybe it was just the abstract metaphors.

I believe that I basically live in this state of "rigpa" as you describe it, by the way. But there are things that occur in the mind that are not easily gotten rid of by releasing them unto God. I believe that this occurs because people have particular purposes in choosing to incarnate. The thoughts relating to these purposes will claim their presence.

It may, however, be a part a part of one's purpose to learn to distance oneself from these desires through spiritual discipline. One may even wish to take a very rigorous approach to this discipline. A lot of the rhetoric I see being proferred here, however, takes this tone suggesting that rigorous discipline is truly everyone's purpose and that they just haven't realized it yet. These people are doomed to live unsatisfying lives in ignorance.

If the state of rigpa is true awareness, anything else must be a state of ignorance, because ignorance means "unaware."

Again, I take issue with the vocabulary. "True awareness?" There is only awareness. One may be aware of God or one may be aware of a thought.

:-(

"True awareness?" There is only awareness.

What I meant by that is awareness of awareness and the Vision of nonduality.

One may be aware of God or one may be aware of a thought.

What is God and what does God do? Or is God a personality?

One may be aware of a thought. But, unless one is aware of awareness and experiencing the Vision of nonduality, this is not rigpa.

My use of the term God is synonymous with what you just described as "the Vision of nonduality."

One may be aware of a thought. But, unless one is aware of awareness and experiencing the Vision of nonduality, this is not rigpa.

Right. I'm less apt to call engagement with a thought a "state of ignorance," however.

My use of the term God is synonymous with what you just described as "the Vision of nonduality."

If it was, I don't think there would be a continuing discussion about the state of ignorance resulting from perspective of thought.

dear oh dear

Well, you're wrong there. (x-post)

Recognizing the reality of the Absolute does not necessarily entail the need to refer to thoughts and emotions in your rhetorical vocabulary.

"Rhetoric" is a perfect example of the point. As I asked you before, can you think of one example of thought which does not ultimately show incomplete reality and ignorance?

And as I believe I answered last time, I concur with "incomplete" but feel that the use of terms such as "ignorance" reflects a dogma that I find to be absolutist and nihilistic.

So, as last time, you didn't answer the question but instead offered your feelings about a word that in itself is only relative truth. This again is a good example of the point.

I did answer the question. If it wasn't clear, my answer is that, yes, I would characterize every possible thought as being "incomplete." There are infinite examples of thoughts, however, that I would not choose to characterize as "ignorant."

Reality is nonconceptual and to conceptualize it in any way is to fall into ignorance, so of course that makes it quite hard to point out and quite hard to discover because every thought misses the point. Transmission often occurs in a nonconceptual way, after which, a student who has practiced various trainings his whole life might say in surprise, "I have always known this, this has always been with me. How come nobody showed me before?" Complete gibberish, if you think about it.

We are getting nowhere with this. I will state for hopefully the last time my belief that phrases such as "fall into ignorance" reflect the rhetoric inherent in the dogma. Rhetoric that insists that choosing not to act, not to "put on the suit of emotion," not to follow thoughts, is always preferable. That following these paths inevitably leads to misery.

And I'll just close with a bunch of points about Nonconceptual Reality, which is obviously not the same as your experience with "God":
http://www.ahalmaas.com/glossary/n/nonconceptual_reality.htm

Why do you assume that it is different?

Based on what you've said, of course.

Or you agree with this but disagree with me somehow?

"True Nature and the nonconceptual

Reality is then nothing but true nature that is constantly displaying itself in various and changing forms. Coemergent nondual presence does not exclude anything. In includes true nature in all of its dimensions and aspects, all of physical reality including our bodies, and our subjective experience with all of its content. We experience this totality as an indivisible truth, where all of its dimensions and forms coexist in total harmony, a harmony that appears in the orderly pattern of the logos. Since we understand this condition to be the objective truth of things we term this wholeness Reality. It is what actually is in its true ontological nature. When we do not see it this way we are simply perceiving through some obscuration or veil, some belief or representation, or from a particular vantage point. In other words, we refer to it as Reality because it is the real; it is how things are when perceived with no subjective filters. We may perceive Reality as it is, completely objectively, or in one degree or another of approximation. Our experience and perception can vary with various factors, but Reality is always a coemergent nondual wholeness."

Based on what you've said, of course.

I don't know what I said, in particular, that you're referring to. Hopefully, you're not making this claim because I dislike the rhetoric I feel to be present behind a lot of the terminology you've used.

That paragraph is OK, but when I read this:

"When we do not see it this way we are simply perceiving through some obscuration or veil, some belief or representation, or from a particular vantage point."

I once again feel that this is coming (perhaps ironically) from a rhetorical vantage point. In stating that these mental contexts are "obscurations" or "veils," mere "beliefs" and "representations," I get the feeling (though the terminology here is less intentionally dark and negative than some that you've previously used) that I am once again being preached to about the tenets, as I said just above, "that choosing not to act, not to put on the suit of emotion, not to follow thoughts, is always preferable. That following these paths inevitably leads to misery."

Okay, so then, my "assumption" was correct. Your experience with "God" is different from nondual awareness and nonconceptual reality.

Actually, when you referred to "the vision of nonduality" earlier, I thought you were referring to the spiritual plane that one may experience in a state of meditation. I see that you are actually talking about perception and awareness.

I believe that my journey through life is similar to the one you've described as rigpa, however. That the true reality of which you speak is what I mean by talking about "God."

Well, whatever you are doing, I respect. I was not trying to argue with you or find fault with you. I was merely trying to explain these things you were asking me about. Maybe I didn't do such a good job. I take full responsibility if I have misrepresented the Dzogchen teachings and I hope what I have said or attempted to say have not been a hindrance or created any hindrances for anyone. I don't claim to be enlightened whatsoever and I am definitely not a master of anything and probably not even a very good student. To go against popular opinion, let me just say that I very much respect the guru tradition and the master-disciple relationship. Anyone who is interested in anything I wrote should find a qualified Dzogchen teacher of authentic lineage or at least check out a few books. Don't base your perception of it on my inarticulate dialog.

whatever you are doing

Living in what might be considered a state of meditation. When I was in my mid-twenties, I went from meditating a lot to basically living in a state of meditation. At the time, I believed this was necessary. I believed that if all of my actions were aligned as much as possible with the infinite energy flow of the cosmic oneness, that I would then be doing all I could NOT TO DIE.

All of this detachment and essentially walking through life as a ghost, however, entailed a real slowness. And when I see that video you linked to upthread, that is what I see - the slowness. What I learned for myself in going through that process was that energy is often better dealt with not by releasing it unto God but through action. And I learned that I wasn't necessarily healthier for living in that way.

Nevertheless, I've basically retained that state of being aware of energy, being able to channel energies anytime, and being aware of thought. But I'm only interested in releasing thoughts to the extent that they seem unhelpful to me in my path in life - not as a matter of general spiritual discipline.

Are you working with the nadis and chakras?

Nadis, I guess, basically correspond to the Chinese meridians? I don't know much about the meridians, but I do use Chinese medicine and believe in it very much.

I'm actually in the middle of taking a class on the chakras right now. It's been helpful for me in understanding certain physiological and emotional issues, definitely. It's been great! But I feel I've got more work to do in terms of meditation and being more aware of the chakras being open or closed. Opening them to allow energy to flow out and attain more balance, but also keeping them protected.

Hmmm, not too familiar with Chinese terminology. I think nadis are meridians. Nadis are energy channels throughout the body. There are two important nadis which they call "sun and moon" in India and Tibet at least and are basically important for moving energy around. Anyway, yantra yoga and guru yoga are Dzogchen practices which works with energy. One is more physical and one is more mental. It is fascinating that energy-light-sound amounts to breath. Yantra yoga is a secondary practice to prepare the body and guru yoga is a very important "short cut" to nondual realization. They are to help relax the mind and body into the undisturbed primordial energy state. There is also a practice of dream yoga in which one has experiences to certainly learn from, but there is the caution not to become involved in fantasy. However, when wisdom spontaneously occurs from the nondual state, there is no doubt about it as it totally defies logic. It can't be explained. It should be impossible. It won't be believed by anyone else. Where does this nondual wisdom come from? Some people would probably run away screaming about devils or something. It just spontaneously occurs. It is miraculous in relative reality, but perfectly natural and ordinary in the primordial sense.

I thought you were referring to the spiritual plane that one may experience in a state of meditation. I see that you are actually talking about perception and awareness.

Yes, in my practice, these things are experiences and are not too important. It is always important to achieve wisdom, of course. But, it's funny if you think about spiritual vs. material forms. The experience of a "supernatural" occurrence does not actually change anything necessarily except you become more flexible in your thinking. You might reconsider whether or not certain fabled entities are real or not. But, whether they are real or not, it does not actually change your experience very much to have this knowledge. I remember when I first spoke to another Dzogchen student about my experiences with meditation, I explained that I was really "there", "just really there" I said and I was so very certain it must be rigpa. He knew I was wrong and helpfully told me I can find out exactly what rigpa is because there is a book that explains exactly what rigpa is and what it is not. A book I already owned, in fact. He told me that what I was doing was Kriya yoga and to remember all these things are just experiences I shouldn't get too attached to. They may be good, they may be bad, but ultimately weren't that important. What was most important was to realize the state of presence and remain there. I was a bit disappointed by this and stubbornly stuck to my Kriya yoga (I still do it!) thinking it was basically the same thing (I don't think this anymore) and this Dzogchen guy was too closed-minded to know the difference. Then, I took my ideas to the online community, where Dzogchen teachers literally told me to "shut my mouth and find a teacher." Well, I really took offense to that, naturally, and began to think of the entire community as a bunch of uppity jerks. The teachers told me to shut up and find a teacher! WTF? What was worse is they would not even try to explain to me anything about what was wrong with my thinking. Many of the teachings are still totally secret and what is generally known isn't usually elaborated upon by anyone that I've ever seen in the way I have been attempting to, except in books of course. Anyway, I don't think they're "uppity jerks" anymore. ;-) That was The Teacher telling me what I needed to hear.

Forgot that I wanted to mention I had some frightening experiences when I was experimenting with kundalini yoga. Chakra work can be a little dangerous or at least kind of unpleasant (not an attempt to make you paranoid or anything). I never believed the hype about "kundalini sickness" and was only slightly worried about success after reading multiple horror stories of awakening, but when stuff started to happen, I quit immediately. Later discovering the book "Living With Kundalini" by Gopi Krishna had me thanking my lucky stars I quit when I did.

For me, the chakra work so far has been an extension of the balancing efforts that were a big part of what I did in meditation anyway. Some of the associations have been very helpful - just realizing that a particular color affects a particular chakra, for example and how you can nourish a chakra by what you wear and what you eat (yellow vegetables and green vegetables, for example). Or the visualization technique of sending rays of colored light into your body.

And, of course, particular chakras are the centers of facets related to human existence (family being in the root chakra, for example). One thing I just realized yesterday is that for a long time I've associated tiredness of the eyes with what in Chinese medicine is known as "liver qi stagnation" and, sure enough, the sense of sight is associated with the solar plexus chakra (the physical areas of which involve the stomach, liver, gall bladder). (That connection is probably explained in the Chinese meridian system as well.)

How do corndogs and blowjobs fit into all of this?

you can give one one

wut

Is there a good "guided meditation" in existence?

Guide me to it, if you can!

guided meditation with thich nhat hanh aka the realest dude

Thanks! Will give some a try. Looks like he has a few things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csyCrcpDs58#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsFlrdXVFgo&feature=related

nishijima is awesome.

I started a meditation class today, and I will now be attempting to observe the part of me that observes twice a week. We only meditated for 10 minutes today, but it was long enough for me to kind of internally freak out. We went around in a circle afterward and briefly discussed what we noticed, and I accidentally gave out the biggest hippie-fried answer out of anyone in the room. But I couldn't help it - I really did notice a long repeating rhythmic phrase between two hums on opposite sides of the room, my head really did feel like it was in a box, and I saw some weird shit on my eyelids.

er... that's how I feel most of the time!

OK, that sounded a bit flippant, sorry. What I mean is that as far back as I can remember, I've been able to drop into that kind of state pretty much instantaneously. I'm not claiming that it's proper meditation or anything, but it's an ability that's probably one of the key things that's stopped me from going crazy over the years. If I get too stressed, I can insta-meditate for a few minutes.

This thread reminds me that I really should try to make time to practise TM more often. Everything Jon Lewis said upthread holds pretty much true for me, too: the industry surrounding it is more than a little dubious but there were some truly decent and committed people involved. I read somewhere that there are now "unofficial" ways of learning the technique: if anyone has any experience of that, I'd love to hear it.

Anyway: it works wonders for me, and I really don't know why I fall out of the habit of doing it. Because I'm a knob, I guess.

was toying with the idea of doing the vipassana course that's coming up soon enough for a while now. but the timetable sounds a bit scary maybe and am also worried abt hemp-wearing types

4:00 am Morning wake-up bell
4:30-6:30 am Meditate in the hall or in your room
6:30-8:00 am Breakfast break
8:00-9:00 am Group meditation in the hall
9:00-11:00 am Meditate in the hall or in your room according to the teacher's instructions
11:00-12:00 noon Lunch break
12noon-1:00 pm Rest and interviews with the teacher
1:00-2:30 pm Meditate in the hall or in your room
2:30-3:30 pm Group meditation in the hall
3:30-5:00 pm Meditate in the hall or in your own room according to the teacher's instructions
5:00-6:00 pm Tea break
6:00-7:00 pm Group meditation in the hall
7:00-8:15 pm Teacher's Discourse in the hall
8:15-9:00 pm Group meditation in the hall
9:00-9:30 pm Question time in the hall
9:30 pm Retire to your own room--Lights out

so i've been thinking of starting to do this

like, 20 minutes a day of just simple meditation

yday and today i did 10 minutes each, just sitting peacefully focusing on my breathing

i really have a lot of stress/anxiety to deal with, i feel like this might help a bit?

and i have so many voices in my head, its like a fuckin pinball machine in there. i'd like to be able to slow that shit down.

Suggest Ban Permalink

i like "namu amida butsu" not because i believe at all in the tenets of amida buddhism but i love the way it repeats in my head. i guess that's what makes a good mantra.

― s1ocki, Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:17 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark

just noticed this! it's still true, maybe i should use it!

adam do you still do it? hoos?

any tips/thoughts would be great. we dont need to talk about past lives & stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPh59jOoiEs

When I'm on my game I'm doing 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes at night, but realistically lately it's more like 30 mins a day on days when I'm not really doing anything else in the morning.

Resist the feeling that you might be "doing it wrong" or wasting your time or "not really meditating" if you get distracted. Eventually those feelings will come up, because they always do. They're wrong.

THAT mantra quote is one of my all-time favourite must-be-underrated comic moments.

Delivered almost as a throwaway line in that scene, it says SO MUCH about so many things...

A friend of mine has gotten into buddhism recently and suggested I try metta bhavana, which is meditation on one's emotions and "lovingkindness", its good for self-image and such. Breathing/posture exercises I also want to try more of. I need to make some changes, I'm a bit of an aimless wreck.

Resist the feeling that you might be "doing it wrong" or wasting your time or "not really meditating" if you get distracted. Eventually those feelings will come up, because they always do. They're wrong.

― some droopy HOOS in makeup (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:36 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

i liked the zazen thing that said, if another thought comes up, just take a mo to acknowledge it and let it go on its merry way

yeah, be like, "thought."

whats up thought, i gotta peace

i was doing ten minutes a morning for a while, i guess i was a bit calmer overall. i started after picking up a book called "start where you are" which imo was a pretty good place to "start."

http://www.amazon.com/Start-Where-You-Are-Compassionate/dp/1570628394

i'm a newb but lots of advice therein^^ seems pretty clear and practical.

no newbs allowed

jk

vgrrl: are you meditating up there?
hoos: my cushion is still sitting in my closet uninflated
hoos: which is probably some kind of metaphor

why do u have to pay to learn tm, seems like a total red flag w/ the word bullshit on it

been doing this for about two weeks now. about 10 minutes a day. not always very successfully but taking it in stride and going easy on myself. i think once i stop wondering "has it been 10 minutes yet?" i can start doing it for longer!

The running thread got me thinking about this.

When I do long distance runs, I really believe this is akin to meditating. The whole listening to your breathing, concentrating for a period of time, being in the "now", even the ability to solve problems that have been bothering you, etc.

I used to meditate for 45 minutes every morning, but now I find that walking or cycling gets me in the proper frame of mind much easier.

That makes complete sense to me, as running has that same effect on me.

i have been wanting to start a meditation practice but have only been sporadic, though it's definitely something i want to engage in more.

I do meditative exercises but I've come to it through drama class, the deep breathing is used as a way to remove muscle tension and boost your voice, works very well and the sense of relaxation is amazing.

We also use these rubber balls a lot, probably more on the muscular side of things but I find them amazing.

They're called Miracle Balls and look very QVC and lame, but I find them amazing as part of meditative exercises as well as more active stuff.

I had a 1-hour formal meditation last night at a public center with some monks present, guiding the process and chanting a bit. It's the longest session I've ever tried, and it was also the first time I'd done it in public. When they woke us out of it, I was sort of upset because I felt like it was 15 minutes max. I really did not believe I had been sitting there for an hour. There were a few instructions -- a mantra, a visualization, etc. -- but I pretty much ignored them most of the time and just let my mind wander. There were 2 or 3 different times when I felt like I was falling out of my body and snapped open my eyes and was extremely disoriented for a few seconds afterwards. Basically it felt like during that hour I was experiences many different conceptions of time.

It was a great experience and I would love to try this again, perhaps tomorrow! SO MUCH seemed to happen even though all I was doing was sitting still in one place.

my bf has enrolled in a study through brown u. on the effects of mindfulness meditation practice on anxiety & depression & post traumatic stress. it's pretty intense , v interesting. he's asked to do at least 40 mins on his own each day in addition to a weekly 3 hour instruction plus a full day retreat. it's a neuroscientific approach, and it has involved him wearing an appliance to monitor his brainwaves during sleep and having EEG while he looks at 'stressful images' (burn victims! simulated domestic violence! wtf). it's all pretty nuts imho, there's some info on the lab here: http://www.brittonlab.com/

Any tips on how to get started on meditating correctly? I just fall asleep.

:(
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/vipassana-guru-s-n-goenka-dies/1176659/

So the last time I regularly meditated was almost 20 years ago. It was so hard for me to stay with the breath that I basically decided I couldn't do it.

Long story but I started again recently and ... it's mindblowingly different. I'm way better at staying with the breath, and when my mind wanders I'm able to bring it back without getting mad at myself. I feel like this honeymoon can't last but right now I'm pretty excited.

The trouble with me and meditation is that my anxiety issues mostly manifest themselves through percieved breathing difficulties, so concentrating on my breath freaks me out.

i thought like one point of meditation was to realize that you really can't control a lot of your mind's eye and to accept the wandering, as it were- become comfortable with the ugly thoughts as well as the good

I've found that mantra meditation is more comfortable for me than breath focused meditation.

What’s a book on mindfulness that is useful that is by someone besides thich nhat hanh. I’ve read many books by that guy and loved them but would like to branch out

I've heard realllly good things about Pema Chodron, this book in particular https://www.shambhala.com/taking-the-leap-1448.html

thanks! the subtitle makes it seem like exactly what i need

I've been kind of frustrated with my meditation practice ... my first year had a bunch of fireworks, and then the last year or so hasn't really had any. On the other hand, I have better emotional awareness than I've ever had, including feeling emotions I'd literally never felt before, like eg feeling a sadness that has nothing to do with depression, a kind of healing grief.

Still, I miss going on retreat and things reliably getting wild. I'm not supposed to crave any particular type of experience in meditation but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Things not getting wild might not be the worst thing. My best friend had a psychotic break while on a meditation retreat and has never fully recovered.

Fair point, sorry to hear that.

I read about that kind of thing happening in The Buddha Pill and although I could certainly imagine it, hadn’t known of anyone it happened to firsthand or secondhand, sorry about your friend.

I have been using this live app which is on sale for another day at 80% off/streetteam

A good Pema Chödrön article was discussed in class this week. Will try to post a link in a bit.

https://tricycle.org/magazine/meditating-emotions/

Charlotte Joko Beck has been an influential read. TBH these days I do more reading about zen than actual sitting.

Did my first Zen thing last weekend, short Zoom retreat with Roshi Joan Halifax. Really dug it. Will check out Charlotte Joko Beck.

Some people find her kind of a downer, but I love her.

What’s the diff between zen and other practices?. I have fucked with TM but have had way better results w mindfulness over the past 6 months.

Roughly speaking, the difference is the lineage. Zen developed in Japan, branching from the Chan lineage in China. Zen lineage-holders were teaching in the US from like the late 1800s. It falls under the big umbrella of Buddhism, places more emphasis on meditation (zazen) then some other other lineages.

IANABuddhist nor an expert on these matters btw

Been doing this for over a year now. No silver bullet or Buddha pill but it definitely helps.

You’ve been doin what? I’ve fallen off the wagon a little and need some inspiration to get back on.

I just can't get motivated these days, life is too messy.

I've had some intense experiences with meditation that feel transformational at the time but then I just end up digging another hole to crawl into.

recently i've found that reading about mindfulness has been as productive as actually meditating. I don't think that's the way its supposed to work but hey whatever floats your boat, right?

switched to lovingkindness practice a few months ago. was initially kinda ... awkward? but less and less so. i'm more repeating the phrases and letting my heart soften than getting a good care bear stare going, so far.

For all the supposed extra time I have in my life in the pandemic, my motivation has been a struggle. I seem to be able to keep up for a month or so, then I hit a week stretch where I can't be bothered at all.

I've been using headspace, which I know a lot of folks don't really love, but it was great when I was first getting into meditating years back. Now I just use it out of momentum. Lately I've been using it as a handy timer, essentially, while I've been playing around with metta meditation.

The one thing I really, really don't like about headspace is that, unless I am doing something majorly wrong, the completely silent timed meditations don't have any sound effect when the time expires. So I end up being way more conscious about the elapsed time than I should be.

Insight Timer yo

I keep hearing that's good, I need to look into it before my headspace renews in December.

recently i've found that reading about mindfulness has been as productive as actually meditating. I don't think that's the way its supposed to work but hey whatever floats your boat, right?

― tobo73, Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:30 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

switched to lovingkindness practice a few months ago. was initially kinda ... awkward? but less and less so. i'm more repeating the phrases and letting my heart soften than getting a good care bear stare going, so far.

― lukas, Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:33 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I've never technically practiced loving kindness but I get the feeling it's very in line with my values, I've come to think of the goal of meditation as turning off my 'monkey mind' and just letting things sort themselves out.

Mindfulness respectfully tends to rub me the wrong way, based as much on the adherents as the actual concepts (NOT a personal dig). It does seem to take a very theoretical approach to a practice which is most effective when approached empirically.

Believe this is improving my hearing

Yeah I have found it sharpens the senses.

I'm looking for an intro to meditation book for a friend. Someone recommended Pema Chodron's Start Where You Are, and sure, Pema Chodron is awesome, it has pretty flowers on the cover and the title sounds right. Should be perfect for a beginner, right?

page 17:

The next slogan is "Self-liberate even the antidote." In case you think you understood "Examine the nature of unborn awareness," let go even of that understanding, that pride, that security, that sense of ground. The antidote that you're being asked to lib- erate is shunyata itself. Let go of even the notion of emptiness, openness, or space.

I used 8 Minute Meditation which was a survey of various practices and an easy intro.

Hmm. I assume you are saying that book may not be right after all, lukas.

Feel like a book might be the best way to start out, although there are plenty of good books for afterwards, once en route. I currently use an app that my work pays for, which may end soon. I am willing to pay my own way going forward since I am invested in the teachers and community but I can't recommend it to a newbie, but I hear people like Insight Timer, Calm and Headspace.

might not be

yes I'm not sure my friend who has never meditated before is ready to self-liberate the antidote

(did not mean to be snarky there, I just find it hilarious this was recommended as a beginner's book)

Right, I get it. I saw some page where they recommended another book of hers, I think.

I just now asked one of my teachers and she recommended: The Beginner's Guide to Insight Meditation, by Arinna Weisman and Jean Smith.

Also thinking maybe something like Thich Nhat Hanh.

Here's an interesting list but I don't know anything about the person who compiled it so take it with a grain of salt: https://bookriot.com/best-meditation-books/

And then there is always the question of how much Buddhism for beginners is present as well.

What I ended up doing is getting her both "Real Happiness" by Sharon Salzberg, which is a very approachable 28-day program, and then "Mindfulness In Plain English", which is a fabulous foundation but too much for someone who isn't already super motivated, I think. My recommendation to her will be to start with the Salzberg book, and after that dip into the other book as desired if she wants to deepen / inspire her practice.

Sound good!

'This the season... to remember that evergreen Ram Dass quote.

Which one?

"hey maharishi, put this under your tongue"?

Ah, no. One version is: if you think you are enlightened, go home for Thanksgiving.

I've built a fair collection of 'beginner's guides' and 'how to's - enough to look at the stack and understand books aren't going to be the thing that'll shove me into regular practise.

I joined a zoom meeting with my local Buddhist group and enjoyed the half-hour meditation a good deal (if enjoyed is the right word) and felt good afterwards but didn't really want the hour afterwards of chatting etc. It's scared me off going back (disorganisation and apathy also relevant here).

Does anyone know of a podcast or YouTube channel of guided meditations for beginners? Or do I just need to get on and find a teacher?

Some of the popular apps seems to have a lot of free content, like Insight Timer, I think,

Some friends of mine use Waking Up, Headspace and Calm but I wouldn't really know.

One version is: if you think you are enlightened, go home for Thanksgiving.

ha. yeah ...

Time for the Xmas LK meditation.

Dedicated the merit....maybe I will keep that to myself.

Happy New Year! How’s it going?

Pretty good! Feels like I'm developing some stability of attention in my home practice. Before I only ever accomplished that on retreat, or by going after the meditation object really greedily. Needless to say, this is a slow process.

Looking for a metta / brahmaviharas retreat, the only one I've found so far conflicts with a wedding, pah.

Yourself?

I'm really glad I have been doing it consistently these past few years. It is much easier for me to get into some version of the proper state, I can't say on demand or as needed, but more often, more readily or something like that. Agree that it is a slow process but, as one of my teachers said the other day, "if it's not slow, it's not real."

I really like that it is a technique or set of techniques actually, that is broadly applicable. And the fact that it requires practice, takes a long time to internalize and that various sorts of perceived "failures" are built into the practice!

Back on the horse. I really fell off in the last quarter of 2021.

Welcome back!

RIP Thich Nhat Hanh, 10/10 human being.

Yes, RIP, almost did the revive myself for that reason.

starting a ten minute a day thing. finally feel like i really need it and like it. excited to keep going.