Bindi

Interesting! Which original teachings?

Repeating something once is certainly not boring or repetitive, especially when it’s about a somewhat difficult subject. I find your perspective very interesting and it gives me much to consider. I really don’t know much about it either, but I would hazard a guess that the second set are dependent on authentically and appropriately activating kundalini. Discouraging interest in siddhis as an end in themselves is wise I think, seeing them as a natural consequence of clearing and developing the subtle energy body whilst not over identifying with them egotistically should be par for the course.

I think I’ll stick with what the Buddha was recorded as saying: From the Atthinukhopariyaayo Sutta of the Pali Tipitaka (Samyutta Nikaya 35.152). But, next time I read that you are enlightened I will give it a stirling spin and tolerate it 🙂 I suspect siddhis are dependent on the subtle channels being cleared and flowing, Ida, pingala and sushumna in yoga, and lalana, rasana and avadhuti in Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps some pseudo-siddhis appear after awakening, perhaps not, but the demonstrable ones I’m interested in tend to be associated with development of the subtle channels. I wouldn’t personally include working with entities as a siddhi, but that might just be me, I prefer to stay well clear of entities.

To me “enlightenment” is quite a loaded word, I have heard people try to get around it by referring to an enlightening state, or using the term awakened, which is indeed a common claim. The main difference being, where enlightened takes lifetimes, awakening can be achieved on the first day of a nondual programme. I don’t think siddhis would correlate much at all with the perspective shift of the awakened, as awakening has no effect on the subtle energy body which is the ground from which siddhis arise IMO.

You marked where you stood within the framework you used, making it very personal when you stated “My personal experience is of having the supreme siddhi [enlightenment] but not the others so much as they are described.” I am pretty sure this is an egotistical position, ie. claiming enlightenment, shored up by the framework you chose which denigrates siddhis, which you don’t possess. Healing is related to qi and Chinese traditions and of course the founder of Christianity was renowned as a healer, knowledge of the subtle body and potentially the ability to see at that level is found in neidan, yoga and Tibetan Buddhism, and all the ‘clairs’ are scattered through most traditions. To paraphrase your question to Jadespear as I read it, “Yeah but are you enlightened like me, cos that trumps any common claim of yours.” People claiming supreme achievements with very little evidence apart from their claim tends to upset me.

Yeah those oh so boring ordinary siddhis, like seeing the subtle body and how to work with it, yawn, seeing physical ailments like cancer and healing it, sooo mundane, all the ‘clairs’, just too common. Far better methinks to be enlightened (which can’t be measured or proven 😉) There is of course an alternative, demonstrate the ordinary siddhis first, and then rise above them, if you’re so inclined, to the extraordinary and uncommon siddhi (enlightenment), and then please give your reasons for choosing to discontinue the ordinary siddhis that are potentially so helpful to people who are ailing on both the physical and subtle body levels.

Given nearly infinite paths of connection from the heart (to the spiritual heart?) why would so few actually arrive? “You cannot know it (Heart) with your mind… You cannot realize it by imagination when I tell you here is the centre. The only direct way to realize it is to cease to fantasize, and try to be yourself. When you realize it, you automatically feel that the centre is there. This is the centre, the Heart, spoken of in the scriptures as hrit-guha-aral [Grace in the cave of the heart] ullam [‘that which is’, the heart].” ~ Ramana Maharshi I’d be curious to hear how the intellect might traverse the heart which sits above the spiritual heart.

According to Yogapedia and reading between the lines, adding Ananda is quite unlikely to just “follow naturally” - “Some say that the experience of sat-chit-ananda is only accessible to a few advanced spiritual masters. Potentially, only 20 or 30 masters have ever been able to reach and remain in this state. It is easier for people to achieve an illuminated mind, but sat-chit-ananda is a higher state even than that.” https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5838/sat-chit-ananda The problem is Ananda cannot be achieved by mental gymnastics, Ananda can only be achieved by entering into the ‘spiritual heart’ where logic doesn’t reign supreme.

What happened to Ananda?

My take: Feelings and thoughts are required for survival and don’t need to be thrown away or cease, only the things that destroy clear thinking and feeling need to be removed, and a new perspective based on reality implanted. This then clears the way for the “Central” work, the more spiritual stuff, Shiva, Shakti, the child etc.

How does “the point of Buddhism is to enjoy life and be happy” square with the stated point of Buddhism being to stop the cycle of rebirth, rebirth being synonymous with suffering?

In my experience certain actions of the body performed at exactly the right time directly affect the subtle energy body. To me this body - subtle body link is indispensable as part of the journey.

I tend to agree, to me the coal face is in the heart, but then I did read recently that Buddhists treat the heart/mind as one, so as Maddie suggests maybe this isn’t actually the true core of Buddhism but a shallow Western interpretation. I do have that impression of Western Buddhists myself though. The one thing I’ve really been able to use from Buddhism is “This too will pass”, not so much lately but for a while it was a powerful mantra when I needed it. As Stirling says, one goes to Buddhism when one feels they are suffering, and it’s true, life can be sucky, but there can be other ways to resolve this. Life being sucky can be a call to arms but Buddhism is far from the only answer. Different antidotes can offer different benefits, life can be seen as a most wonderful opportunity instead of a thing that needs to ultimately be escaped from, I’d prefer to find the value of life rather than the ultimate escape from life which Buddhism ultimately is, and I don’t believe that’s just for Western Buddhists. I would say accepting all feelings… “ is actually much better for you since you no longer block life energy and you become happier as a result.”

Double post

Karmic seeds I agree, where they’re stored can be an interesting question, I currently would say they are stored in kundalini consciousness. For me how to work on them is a continuation of feeling the feeling, which I think is different to seeing them for what they are. I fundamentally see both karma and emotional damage as entirely valid emotional responses to external conditions, which cease when they have delivered their message, and their message has been heard. Ah, the meaning of life 😀 To me, if I get the entire factory of myself working, only then can I see what the factory is for and what it produces. I see all religions and philosophies as others opinions, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t agree with. It seems to me that buying into any one system does require one to buy into that system’s b/s, and has a high chance of blocking out a competing system’s truths. I remain remarkably happy following my own path 😊 It’s interesting that it’s available if you go looking for it, possibly in many religions and philosophies, so we’re never fully stuck perhaps. I’m glad to hear about the Svabhavikakaya, I dislike the current trend to refer to the body as a meat suit, to see it as an integrated part of the whole seems so much healthier.

I think my difference is that I seek the underlying causes for my negative emotions, and as they become resolved so the negative emotion lessens in both the short and long term. I have the idea that healing needs to happen, but perhaps this is the same as “seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on”? Same with my interest in subtle energy systems, they are the underlying reality I am interested in, but maybe the Buddhists would say the subtle energy system is also just a display, or maybe that’s the non-dualists, who knows anymore ☺️

Do you know what Buddhists mean when they call emotions illusory?

As Maddie said earlier it is the monologue attached to the feeling that creates the suffering, I might say it is the monologue that extends the suffering, the feeling in the moment might make me miserable but when it ends I am not miserable anymore - some feelings are decidedly unpleasant. But… at this point in time I do take the feeling as ‘me’, just as I take thoughts to be me and my body to be me. I am also Shakti and shiva, and at some point I may identify as their child, I am multifaceted and can see the world through all of these perspectives, why would I need to disidentify with any perspective? I am a multicelled organism with multiple perspectives as opposed to Buddha’s no-self.

In what sense are feelings illusory?

I agree the narrative can be misleading, I do try to just feel the pure feeling divorced of narrative.

@Mark Foote, I’ve made a new thread to not disrupt daniels very good efforts to get to the bottom of the meaning of nonduality. My conclusions are fundamentally different to Gautama’s I believe, in that to me the root of suffering is our endless tendency to stifle feeling bad. Locating feelings in the Ida Nadi means that our subtle energy body is disrupted through stifling as subtle energy is stopped from flowing through, and even in the central channel I am inclined to believe that the root problem is emotional damage that is carried over. To me kundalini is a valid part of the path and central channel work, and from what I can understand kundalini herself is also wounded, it’s like all the yin layers are suppressed and consequently damaged, and the work that I do is to allow feelings as the fundamental cure. As far as I know Buddhism refers to feelings as illusory, I see them as subtle energy and entirely real and valid.

Interestingly, I have believed for a few years that the two side channels equate to feeling (Ida Nadi) and mental perception (Pingala Nadi), and bringing them back to healthy activity ends my primary identification with them as consciousness moves to the central channel. From my perspective they don’t cease, but they start to function together in a way that doesn’t need my primary attention, they become semi-autonomous if you will, but their information still feeds into the overall system. Different to Gautama’s conclusion but interestingly referring to the two same systems of feeling and perception.

Just along the lines this thread is taking, I think Jesus was a phenomenal person, my small gripe would be that he didn’t go beyond the framework of the Judaism he was brought up in, but he was a groundbreaker and he couldn’t get everything right. Also nothing against Jews, but Judaism has its limitations, just as Christianity and Buddhism do. Mixing up spiritual metaphors, I find an echo of reality in the Neidan child, which I see as the produce of yin qi and yang qi or “Shiva and Shakti”, I think a couple of people, specifically Jesus and the founder of neidan, got to this point, and gained real powers. Personally speaking I don’t think the Buddha got to any real point, I think he came to an intellectual conclusion that was still mind based… just putting it out there ya know 🙃

From my perspective, the subtle energy realities are dual, literally paired systems, being the right and left subtle channels (yin and yang/Ida and pingala/lalanā and rasanā). They are not cleared by wishful thinking or not thinking, and to get anywhere they do have to be cleared. It’s a spiritual scam is to say there is nothing to do there. The central channel (sushumna/avadhūtī) is also a dual system, referred to as shiva and shakti or Yang Qi and Yin Qi. These energies have to be brought together. This is also not achieved by wishful thinking, or denying their existence. Beyond these tasks there may be nonduality, the mindless mind, emptiness, but to truly attain this a whole lot of healing of the subtle channels needs to take place. I agree with you Daniel, nondualists claim superiority of understanding and achievement, but all their blabbering is just a fools game that is currently in vogue.