Meditation people roll call!

(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?