Aetherous

8 hours ago, freeform said:

(Without even mentioning the different teachers I’ve trained with - whose validity you can only guess at...) The Pali Canon, the oldest and most complete teachings of the historical Buddha state that cultivating love and compassion etc will not lead one to enlightenment. Quite explicit.

When I quoted that part, I suggested the importance of reading through that entire Wikipedia article. It's important to do that, and read carefully. Basically, to sum it up, that's probably not what it said...nor is it the complete opinion on the subject from the Pali canon. If you read through the whole article and wonder about parts of it, I'm willing to discuss those parts here (it's on topic for the thread).

Whenever I suggest to read something fully, it's not done flippantly, and it's not merely a "suggestion" (as in something that might be worth doing, but it's up to you if you feel like it). It should instead be considered a prerequisite for continuing in an intelligent discussion, where we actually figure out the truth. And when I hyperlink something, that means everything within the hyperlink is essential to understanding what I'm saying...it's not to be considered optional to look at the hyperlink, or considered enough to merely glance at a part of the link, without fully comprehending everything in it. Those who don't look and comprehend simply won't understand what we're discussing, and will be lost and confused.

8 hours ago, freeform said:

The other side of the equation - well we’re not exactly sure (as none of us are experts - and we have no scriptures to quote), but it seems that maybe in Mahayana Buddhism it’s assumed that cultivating love and compassion will bring you enlightenment... It’s just not an equally weighted opposition... (and it still doesn’t say that Divine Love is the fundamental truth of reality)

Please read this article on Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche, and read it fully. If some words are unclear, or if some names are given that you don't know about, please research those things until you have a very good understanding of them, and then continue reading the article so that you fully comprehend it. After that, please go back to my posts here and fully reread every hyperlink. I linked you to those things for a reason: because many of them back up this view, and they do so from other Tibetan Buddhists who are unaffiliated with CNR, and also sometimes from scriptures.

It's something CNR teaches, and which was backed up by those other hyperlinked sources, that buddha nature has the qualities of unlimited love and compassion. That when a person is enlightened, those qualities manifest...and that when an unenlightened person cultivates those qualities, they cultivate enlightenment. While I'm not someone who personally knows many scriptures, I also don't think a highly respected Buddhist abbot would just be making things up, and based on the hyperlinks I gave you, we can be assured that he didn't.

8 hours ago, freeform said:

Not to mention that there may well be a political reason for this change in  interpretations of Buddha’s teachings. Afterall - generous donations to the temple are also seen as paths to enlightenment...

Since this Tibetan Buddhist view apparently coincides with the pre-Buddhist Indian view, I don't see that as being the case.

8 hours ago, freeform said:

On the other hand, Dwai’s argument - that in Hindu traditions Divine Love is the foundation of existence... that seems to be spot on. Clearly many venerated Hindu figures have claimed it so. It’s also been my experience of a Hindu guru. Pretty sound argument.

Yes, I agree.

47 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Let me try to cut the knot by means of an extreme simplification. As far as I understood it Mahayana Buddhism promotes the figure of the Bodhisattva and Theravada Buddhism promotes the figure of the Buddha (or arhat). Now the Bodhisattva  refuses to enter nirvana as a Buddha until all other creatures have also reached Buddhahood (and thus the Bodhisattva keeps on reincarnating). So one could indeed say that "universal love" kind of hinders reaching the final stage of nirvana as a Buddha.

I think Bodhisattvas become Buddhas (or strive to if they are "aspiring") for the sake of all beings, and don't hold back an attainment to wait for others. The attainment is the means to liberate others.

In the midst of cooking up storms, I've come to realize the importance of having a good knife, as well as maintaining it.

Here's a guide to different types of steel for all knives in general (not just kitchen knives). After looking through that and some other sources, to me it seems like S35VN is a very good steel for kitchen knives. They can tend to be expensive...here is a cheaper one and here is a more expensive one. This is just based off of the steel type used...I'm sure various people have various opinions on their favorite kitchen knives.

Those with more experience in the kitchen probably need multiple different types of knives for specialized purposes, but for a home cook, the "chef knife" design seems to cover all bases well enough.

When you have a knife, you need a cutting board. The harder the surface you cut food on, the quicker the knife becomes dull. Here's someone's opinions on different types of wood for cutting boards.

I've learned that honing steels (and similar things) are only good for straightening an edge, but they don't sharpen knives. Here's a video of the infamous Gordon Ramsay using a honing steel, and mistakenly thinking he's "sharpening" his knife:

I prefer the way Gordon does it in this video, as opposed to other versions of how people do it, because he's not moving the blade against it but has it turned in the opposite direction (which I think is better for the edge...he's doing it similar to stropping).

Honing steels are slightly confusing and misunderstood, because in the knife sharpening world, to "hone" means to sharpen. This could cause people to assume that honing steels sharpen their knives. In the knife sharpening world, doing as in the video would be called "steeling", which is to take bent parts of the edge out and straighten them back up...whereas actual "sharpening" (grinding away metal so as to create a sharper edge) is done on whetstones.

The way you can tell if you need to use one of these honing steels is to put your knife blade up toward a light source, and look down at the blade. Move it around a bit. If you see an imperfection in the edge where the light kind of reflects back, it's showing a place where the blade got slightly bent off center. Maybe you were chopping up a piece of chicken and it hit a bone, then that hard piece of bone bent the steel edge very slightly. That is the only reason for using a honing steel. You can tell it worked by looking at the knife again and not seeing that imperfection.

That doesn't mean your knife got resharpened, though.

"Stropping" is rubbing the knife against a piece of leather in a particular way. This is the way to bring sharpness back from a very slight dulling of the edge, and is what should be done each time prior to using the knife (as well as the final phase of sharpening with whetstones).

So it seems to me, that unlike what Gordon says, we should look at our knives to determine if there are any visible imperfections in the edge. If so, hone it (or steel it) so that those aren't visible and the bent edges are restraightened. If there's nothing visible indicating a bent edge, or after we've re-straightened it, then we should strop the knife to get the sharpness back...then go on to using it. Basically, proper knife care (despite what most people think) would involve stropping before each use.

When knives are actually dull, they need to be sharpened. This requires whetstones, but I haven't figured out the best ones to get for that yet. YouTube has tons of videos of guys who have a keen interest in knife sharpening, and they can steer us in the right direction. There are all sorts of videos of testing blade sharpness by cutting pieces of paper, forearm hair, sponges, etc. But for now, I wanted to just differentiate in the little understood difference between: honing steels (to remove bent parts of the edge), stropping leather (to maintain the razor sharp edge), and whetstones (to actually resharpen a knife).

8 minutes ago, freeform said:

Maybe you could post some text from the Mahayana tradition that talks about cultivating positive states like bliss and love leads to enlightenment - I’d be interested to  read that.

If people are interested, they can explore (fully) all of the links I posted and then do further research based off of that info. I'm not informed enough about Mahayana texts to recommend anything.

8 minutes ago, freeform said:

Of course there are other views in ‘the entirety of Buddhism’... But not all views are equally valid. That’s very important.

Tibetan Buddhism is valid, and Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche is a very respected figure in Tibetan Buddhism.

If you want to argue that Tibetan Buddhism isn't valid, and only the Pali canon is...you're entitled to your opinions, and I don't personally have an interest in that discussion.

8 minutes ago, freeform said:

Theres also the question of teachings for the general public and teachings for spiritual cultivators. And these are often quite different - even from the same teacher.

 

I’m not sure whether an online course would be revealing inner door practices but I doubt it as they can be dangerous.

The general public teachings of Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche are on the Dharmasun website here. Maybe once a year there's also a big event which is posted on the website...sometimes it requires some prior experience, but sometimes it's for the general public. If you're ever in Nepal, I'm sure there are also general teachings given by him in person.

The Triple Excellence course gets into specialized training, is meant to be practiced, and isn't general public lectures. It starts with Sutrayana, then goes to Mahayana (which I've only completed 1/3rd of), then goes on to Vajrayana: what are called the three excellences. All three excellences are kind of based on the vajaryana in this program...there are things done similar to generation and completion stage tantric work right off the bat. After a certain stage of the third excellence, you need empowerment and teaching in person to perform the practices and continue. I think there are also methods performed to support the triple excellence which aren't part of the online program, but are done as a group in person (such as Ocean of Amrita). The entire course is taught from a higher perspective (I think an atiyoga or dzogchen  perspective), so for instance even in the beginning when speaking of the three jewels, the Buddha isn't understood as the Shakyamuni Buddha (as it can be in the outer vehicles), but is taught to be one's own Buddha nature.

It really is a great course. Crystal clear teachings. I would even recommend it as a supplement to other Buddhist teachers, just to get a broader and more decisive perspective of the Tibetan Buddhist path. Imagine having a constant stream of very clear teachings, and practice which provides experiential understanding, every day for years...how many of us can say we're being taught by our Buddhist teachers every single day, for like 20-30 minutes each time? I think most Westerners are only able to attend seminars now and then, and they miss out on a lot of the foundation teachings as a result.

Everyone has their own path, but just saying that this is very good. I understand the derision toward an online course most of the time, but that's not applicable in this case.

I think a large part of truly waking up is realizing how fucked up things are.

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

Sauce?

 

Lousisiana, Cholula, Franks...for different applications. Sriracha is overrated.

20 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

Both of the definitions use the word sex which is defined as: "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

The link in my last post defines male as: "Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa..."

Of is the key word there.

On bliss as our true nature (Hinduism in this link, not Buddhism...something I know even less about).

On "brahman".

57 minutes ago, Zen Pig said:

Not to get into semantics, but for me, it is not so much as "getting past" this love, light, goodness, etc,  but to see that it is all in the stillness,  which is also the fullness, nothing is separated or separable.  but that's my take, could be wrong. 

I think you're right.

40 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

Yes - that’s a good find. I believe the Pali texts are the oldest and most closely associated to the Buddha’s actual teachings?

 

...that practice [namely, the mere cultivation of love and so forth, according to the fourfold instructions] is conducive not to turning away, nor to dispassion, nor to quieting, nor to cessation, nor to direct knowledge, nor to enlightenment, nor to nirvana, but only to rebirth in the world of Brahma.

I'm not an expert on the differences between Tibetan Buddhism and Theravada, or even an expert on either one. But it seems to me like Theravadans value the Pali canon as absolute (they try their best to follow the teachings of the Shakyamuni Buddha pretty much exclusively), while Tibetan Buddhists have other teachings and don't care quite that much for it (although maybe still valuing it)...and I think Tibetans believe there are other Buddhas, not just the one from India. They definitely have their own ways, which are quite distinct from the Theravada/Pali canon stuff, to the point of appearing to be an entirely different thing altogether.

40 minutes ago, freeform said:

That mirrors the classical Daoist view. And so does what you say... that kindness and compassion are qualities of a highly realised being. And I’m certainly not contradicting that! It’s one of the Virtues (De) in Daoism.

It gets confusing if we mix Daoism with Buddhism...it's good to keep traditions separate and distinct in order to preserve them, although it can be interesting to compare them sometimes.

In Tibetan Buddhism, they're not just qualities of a realized being, but are qualities of the Buddha nature (which everyone already has). Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche confirms that to cultivate loving-kindness and compassion is to cultivate the Buddha nature, and enlightenment.
 

40 minutes ago, freeform said:

As you say - these are characteristics of a highly realised being - not the focus of practice and neither does it say that Divine Love is the fundamental nature of your ‘true self’. These are new age interpretations. Which may have its root in Hindu forms of cultivation. Dwai would be best placed to talk about that.

The Mahayana path focuses on actually practicing these things.

Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche saying that some qualities of the Buddha nature are unlimited loving-kindness and compassion is not a new age interpretation.

30 minutes ago, freeform said:

That’s the main area of disagreement. My teachers say that emulating the virtues creates more layers of distortion that move you further from Yuan Shen and create unintended consequences in the world.

 

However - for the general population (not spiritual cultivators) it’s not only perfectly fine, but is of great benefit. I believe that’s why many teachers will teach this. 

You seem to be speaking of Daoist lineages. Buddhism doesn't use the term "yuan shen", and Tibetan Buddhism in the Mahayana vehicle is all about these things. They are spiritual cultivation.

It's good to go with what your teachers have told you, but those things are unique to you and your teachers...not to the entirety of Buddhism (especially if those teachings aren't Buddhist, but are Daoist).

33 minutes ago, freeform said:

Aetherous - yes the Buddhist teachers I came across in the West tend to focus on Loving Kindness and related subjects. Although I’m not well versed in Buddhist scripture, there may well be something there about Divine Love being the true self... (Can you find such a quote?)

I've really only learned from Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche, just a little bit through his online DharmaSun "Tara's Triple Excellence" program (which is quite good), and what I said was my summary of something he teaches.

To say more from what I remember: He taught that the Buddha jewel has enlightened qualities, and some of them are unlimited loving-kindness and compassion. That cultivating the four immeasurables, such as loving-kindness and compassion, helps the buddha nature come forth (because those are the qualities of it).

If we look at the enlightened qualities (in this link) we see that great compassion (maha karuna) is always one of them. I personally don't differentiate much between compassion and loving-kindness, because they're really like two sides of the same coin (wishing someone doesn't suffer versus wishing someone is happy...there's a difference, but there's not really a difference). Here are some more qualities of a buddha, according to Maitreya, of which "love" is one.

The various sects of Buddhism differ, so Theravada wouldn't necessarily agree with this stuff (although someone truly learned and accomplished might). I know that in the Pali canon, the historical Buddha said that the four immeasurables doesn't lead to nirvana (good to read that entire Wikipedia page, because there's more to chew on there regarding this).

23 minutes ago, guest25 said:

I wonder what percentage of psychology PhDs would be diagnosed with psychosis if they all evaluated each other. The battle of prickles vs goo goes on.

Just now, MooNiNite said:

You are talking out of practicality without any sources.

Practicality, or "vernacular" is a big part of how dictionary entries are formed. Each year, they add new words to the English language based on common use.

Also, check this out: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male

59 minutes ago, freeform said:

But in the Daoist and Buddhist lineages I’ve come across, this was specifically warned against as a trap. With strong emphasis and by several high level teachers.

"Big love" is warned of as a trap? That's not true in the Buddhism I've come across. That's basically the Mahayana path, and it could be considered equivalent to the Buddha jewel.

29 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

No the array of materials themselves don't vanish. Only their collective scientific reference changes.

I don't think so. Everyone still says "Oh, they're working on MooNiNite's car." They don't say, "The mechanics are working on MooNiNite's array of materials that would be a car if it had four wheels attached."

Dictionaries are created based on how people speak, and not the other way around.

To get back to the male thing, I think it requires careful reading of that Google dictionary entry, which is written poorly. A male is not an entire physiological sex; a male is an individual member of that group. It's good to consult multiple dictionaries in the case of one being poorly written.

55 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

If we take the wheels off, is it still a car? Not by definition. 

If it's in the shop, and for some reason they took all the wheels off to do a repair, are they no longer working on your car? Your "car" suddenly vanishes from existence! That would suck.

5 hours ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

Once we have made an energetic connection with another, the mind can easily connect with that energy with any thought of that person.

It certainly seems more true when you believe it to be true. Best to just go with the idea that this isn't happening here.

1 hour ago, freeform said:

Yeah - I guess it depends... there’s ‘self cultivation’... which is a path in itself. In self cultivation things like gratitude journals, ‘positive thinking’, and other personal development type stuff can be useful.

 

For ‘spiritual cultivation’ that sort of stuff just adds more layers of Acquired Mind... not useful.

That's just one perspective on the matter. Other perspectives don't view the mind as something in the way.

5 minutes ago, freeform said:

Like watching a comedy or a nice sunset... nothing wrong with that  

 

Wouldn't call that cultivation though.

Yes to those things. Or having a gratitude journal, like OP mentioned.

It definitely is cultivation. Every moment of our lives is cultivation...what we focus on is what we, or our lives, become.

3 hours ago, freeform said:

I think it’s important to clarify what you mean by ‘positive emotion cultivation’...  

Any activity that promotes positive feelings.

On 4/28/2018 at 12:49 AM, 9th said:

 

 

I've found this to be quite the interesting little book...better than other stuff Manly P Hall wrote.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/55687/55687-h/55687-h.htm

Sounds like good forms of cultivation.

A potential problem with cultivating positive emotions...

Think metaphorically of all emotions as being like clouds in the sky. Positive ones are bright and fluffy. Negative ones are dark and overcast. We know that clouds are made up of miniature water droplets...and in those water droplets, on bright fluffy cloud days, the light of the sky (your natural bliss) gets reflected off of each little particle. On overcast days, there's much less reflection of light.

So when you have those bright fluffy cloud days, or majestic looking cloud days, or to speak precisely - those times when you're having positive uplifting emotions - the positivity you feel is a reflection of that bliss of samadhi...but it's a reflection and it isn't the thing itself.

Why? Because it's also true that clouds come and go...whereas the natural bliss doesn't fluctuate. It's impossible for someone to be positive emotionally all of the time...just like it's impossible to always have our favorite clouds in the sky. But it's always true that the sun is in the vast expanse of the heavens...some things don't change.

If our cultivation depends on being happy, then we develop an attachment to that and an aversion away from the darker cloud days, or negative feelings...and attachment/aversion are, according to the Buddhists, some of the root causes of negative emotions. Someone who can't handle any negativity isn't doing well at all on the path. So the trick here is that the key to being positive emotionally, is to not need to be that way. To be unattached to it.

But positive emotion cultivation is a great thing. I think our natural bliss tends to come forth in the midst of positive conditions...so despite the "bright fluffy clouds" (positive conditions) merely being reflections of true bliss, they also coincide closely with it...whereas the dark days, or negative emotions, have the opposite effect. When we're peaceful, we can more effectively realize our natural bliss compared to when we're emotionally distraught.

So...I see nothing wrong with positive emotion cultivation, and I do indeed think it helps us with our ultimate attainment, whatever that is. It's just important to remember that positive emotions come and go, and it's not good positive cultivation to let that bother us.

In addition to the above, some other issues that come up...

I think we've seen multiple people coming to the forums with depersonalization/derealization issues resulting from their meditation. This can especially happen with meditation practices that seek to realize that the sense of self is an illusion...the practitioners misunderstand the purpose of such teachings, and end up causing depersonalization, where they feel like they are observing the body as if it's not them etc, which is not the correct result and is a disorder that causes major problems in their life. Derealization can also happen with meditation, where the person feels like the world isn't real and everything seems fake. These are not achievements, although misunderstanding various spiritual teachings can definitely lead one to believe they are...some of these teachings are quite easy to misunderstand. And I think various "spiritual teachers" in the marketplace sometimes have these disorders - such as the neo-advaitans who give satsangs.

I personally had a frightening time resulting from energy practices done incorrectly, ended up in two psych wards for a few days each, and had strong experiences of "ideas of reference", which for a short time I mistook to be real (and therefore had "delusions of reference"). I've seen one other person come to the forum with that same issue, and I tried to help them...but it's extremely challenging to reason with a person whose mind isn't functioning optimally, who is in a heightened state of emotions, and who believes what they're experiencing.

What helped me recover psychologically from my experience was practicing the attention training methods from Dr. Amit Sood's book Train your Brain etc, in addition to other basic ideas like getting into a normal sleep schedule, etc. It was challenging to ultimately overcome the ideas of reference, but it's possible and these days I basically never experience such things...my mind got back to normal.

Sorry this isn't really well referenced on the subject of deviations, but it's some of what we've seen at the forum and my own experience, with some clear diagnoses (only licensed professionals can diagnose) for these particular issues. I'm sometimes not a fan of psychiatry, but in these disorders I think they're spot on.

I'd say that it's important to just tell this guy he's crossing your boundaries and he doesn't have your permission to do so, that you aren't twin flames and that you have zero interest in him, and that you think he's being an energetic vampire and he must leave you alone - not just physically, but even energetically. Then stay away from him in the real world; break off all communication for the rest of your life.

Things will get better.

This is already public knowledge here so I won't PM it, but Garry Hearfield out of Australia has taught some of these arts along with meditations, and he at least used to be a member here. He used to have a website where he sold various instructional DVDs. I don't know if he has the specific info you're looking for, but I'd get in touch with him if you haven't already.