Bruce

I found the points you make very interesting,... virtually matching the questions I now find myself trying to understand at the core of my own practice. Your concluding paragraph above I found particularly resonating,... except for a small 'buzzing', like a fly somewhere in a large room. That unsettling note just wouldn't go away the more I thought about what you were saying. Finally it came to me.

 

At first I thought, 'Yes !! That's it',... "Lao Tzu didn't follow the Tao,... he was the Tao".

 

I liked that better. For a while. But, you know,... though the buzzing was diminished, it still was not gone.

 

Just now, I think I finally spotted the fly. It comes from the nature of our dualistic mind which, (since it's the only one we have been provided with), we have no choice but to think through. Our mind can only operate via a subject / object relationship. "We", are always the subject, the "centre". Everything else in the universe, including the most abstract and ethereal of philosophies, are all "objects". All revolve at a distance around us.

 

So, when the fly finally stopped buzzing, this is what I was left with :

 

It wasn't that 'Lao Tzu was the Tao',...."The Tao was Lao Tzu !!"

 

A seemingly small change in word order, but correcting this inadvertent reversal of subject and object, was to trace back and set right the very first error we make in our attempts to follow this noble path. And that change makes 'everything else' that comes afterwards completely different.

ThisLife

.

Brilliant!

The story is all over the net, but there's no substantiation that I can find. Apparently, Clinton urged the Chinese to continue investing in the US, citing US/China interdependence.

I remember similar doomsday stories back when Japan was the leading investor. It will be interesting to see if there's any government response.

Yes if you know what you are doing and if you have proper empowerment for such practice.

Santi

Is that tonglen used within another practice requiring empowerment? I've not heard of empowerments being given for the practice of tonglen itself.

I would venture to say that if the mind moves we are not in accordance with the Tao. If the mind does not move then we can't help but be in accordance with the Tao. Thus, it is not easy to be in accordance with the Tao so we cultivate toward a mind that does not move.

In the Shurangama sutra, the Buddha says that trying to add light to enlightenment creates our phenomenal world.

To my knowledge, that's not the purpose of the practice. As to whether it can, I've no clue.

That's more clear NW. Me thinks I'm getting too damn Buddhist fundamentalist again!

I'm trying to be more open. Btw, don't think I have anything against sex.

hello bums, I have a question.

 

is tonglin breathing an actual healing practice or is it simply a practice of compassion?

 

any difference according to you?

 

thank you for replies.

Tonglin is both. You can use tonglin to "heal" yourself by dredging up a lot of hate and resentment and looking at it head on. Tonglin is also a practice to actualize the feeling at least of compassion for others, if not actually realize the real deal. In a way it's a fake it 'till you make it practice, but it's very effective if followed through. It's part of the preliminaries in vajrayana.

Well to me, anything that removes blockages in your system by healing is very valuable for enlightenment purposes -- that's a part of 'enlightenment', namely being able to deal with family history and karma, that sexual practice is very suitable for, but it's also a part that many monastic systems skip over.

 

If you're constantly happy and fulfilled, it makes being nice to people alot easier, and that makes flowing with one's life harmoniously alot easier. If you don't live in a monastery, such things are like gold dust... look around and see how hard people are chasing it.

 

NW

Maybe you didn't read my first post mate. I was right up there with the best of them chasing after it, and in retrospect it did nothing to enlighten me, except maybe as to how not to live my life. Now that was just sex for sex. Sex in a loving relationship is different, but I still can't agree that it's enlightening or even part of a path to enlightenment. If it reduces stress then that's good, but one might look at the source of that stress. Fulfilling an instinct isn't enlightening. Neither is eating.

If I'm reading what you're writing correctly, you're equating constant happiness with sex. That's equating happiness with something that is very impermanent. Isn't the point of this spiritual quest to find what brings real happiness - the happiness that's beyond emotional happiness or emotional love? In the end, it's just you and what's inside you. Eventually the lovers are gone, or just old. Whatcha gonna do then? Use the memories on your path?

Maybe I'm reading too much into what your saying. I do agree that the monastic system takes away some things that are natural, and there are good arguements both for and against that. Having been in that system for a time, I think I can understand both.

The highest tantric approach uses sex for the control of energy or that vital essence that's talked about. It isn't about "getting off", and in fact as Lin mentioned, they don't. It isn't about love or any other emotion, and it isn't about removing blockages or healing. It's just another form of meditation or qigong, albeit at the highest level, and I mean the very highest of levels.

So, sorry. We can agree to disagree.

Hey NW,

I agree that it's interesting, I just don't agree that it's enlightening. There would be a hell of a lot of enlightened people walking around if that were the case. Then again, I suppose it depends on ones definition of enlightening.

Ok. Maybe I was too flippant in my answer, but there was a reason for it. To me, spiritual sex is along the lines that Lin is thinking. I'm thinking of real tantric sex, which is a bad label given what people think of nowdays. I'm referring to the highest of tantras in the vajrayana, for the most accomplished of practitioners of which there are or have been very few.

All of us have felt a "union" when in love and having that session of perfect sexual love. There was a spot on the floor in a house I used to own that I considered "sacred" for one of those times. OK, minutes have just gone by as I relived that.

IMO though, that's not enlightened sex. It's just love and love is an emotiion. As good as it feels I wouldn't label it enlightened or spiritual. I guess it depends on where your mind was when doing it. In the highest tantra, my understanding anyway is that the union is occuring in emptiness. It's not at all about sex, but about union with the ultimate, thus all the iconographs of Buddhist or Hindu saints in consort.

I do understand where you're coming from. I just don't happen to agree, but that's ok too. Have fun. Us old married guys with kids can remember from time to time.

The root of my fear was marriage and it's offspring is called Josh.

Sorry. Just trying to lighten this up. I must be more bored than I suspected.

I don't know the answer to this question. It would be easy to say love or some other sentiment, but more often than not I don't see it demonstrated. We could all find some commonality in scripture if we tried, but sometimes it's a stretch. What all religions do have in common are people; people who wrote the scriptures, commentaries and papers, claiming devine inspiration of course. Writings by people with a set agenda. Preaching or teaching by people with a set agenda, a set dogma, sometimes a set political leaning and agenda, and their idea of the devine that they intend to make you believe whether you want to accept it or not, and if you don't they'll condem you themselves.

In my experience people from some religions are easier to have a meaningful conversation with than others. Fundamentalists, by definition, tend to be closed minded. They're taught that their way is the way and everyone else is wrong. You can't have a productive discussion with someone like that. Others are much more open and a joy to speak with.

For practices like qigong or other energy moving practices, I think one is advised to stay close to a teacher. I've done a bit, but heeded the warnings about preceeding too far without expert advice.

For spiritual practice, I believe that old saying: when the student is ready the teacher will appear.

My best teachers have been normal, everyday people who had nothing to do with religion.

I do think having a formal teacher, at various points in life, is beneficial. I've had a few. Often my geographic location has made having a formal teacher on a regular basis impossible, at least without a lot of travel.

Once you get some experience in your practice, I think most know when they're "doing it right" and don't need a teacher there to tell them so. In vajrayana, you get an empowernment from your teacher then go off and practice it. You could spend 3 years doing some of those practices with very little need for direct contact with a teacher. It might be hard to do koan practice without a teacher. I've never done koan practice myself. My practice of Shikantaza is just a practice of sitting every day. Once you get what it is, you just do it, and once you've discussed some "experiences" with your teacher and they've told you in no uncertain terms that they're just experience, and "just keep sitting", you stop getting all excited about it and just sit.

So for now I'm teacherless, and content with it. There will probably come a time again when I really feel the need for one, or maybe one will just appear.

What I have been missing is being around other like minded people to talk about this kind of thing, and the other things we talk about here. I actually like this a bit better though. In a sangha, or group with a specific teacher, others often just reiterate what the teacher says. You don't get any differing views. I like having differing and sometimes divergent views. I tried some Buddhist forums, but never really enjoyed them. I like it here.

Sex? I vaguely remember that .......

You know, 20 years ago I was obsessed with it. As time has gone on, sex now seems such a triviality in the scheme of things. I now think about how much time and energy I wasted on thinking about it and the pursuit of it, and all of the problems, some small and some large that it caused. It was truely a waste of time!

I don't think god/enlightenment = sex, but I think I know where you're coming from. That's just good sex. Personally, I think new age tantric sex is bullshit. Yeah it's more loving and tender and that's great. Spiritual? I don't think so. It's just good sex, unless you like it some other way.

Bloody hell I feel old after writing that.

All religions are made up of individuals.

Individual lives vary,but one thing holds true.

We are all here to learn,

Learn to love

Love our neighbours,even when their actions,the words and beliefs

make them hard to handle

Love the earth because it sustains all of us

but probably the hardest of all

learn to love ourselves.

If there is interfaith disharmony

Then there is resistance.

We don't have to agree,or like,or believe,or care.

but we have to love

Even if that love is manufactured,even if we have to cheat and say I love this person when you don't.

How much human energy has been spent,reading holy books,performing cermonies,meditating,philososphy.

Still if there is no love,what good does it serve.

The real challenge is to remain open

not to shut down our hearts in the face of pain

continuing to love in the face of outrageous circumstances.

Easier send then done,

still it is how we as individuals and collectively respond to the challenges of life

that measure the true nature of our being.

I second Matt's call of spot on!

No matter how much religious or spiritual practice one engages in, if they still have hate in their hearts they've learned nothing. Way too often, I'm one of those who has learned nothing. Thanks for reminding me to put my bodhisattva vow first. If I can't do that, all the meditation in the world will get me nowhere.

Gasho

I think we're real. It's only our idea of separateness that's unreal, and even our concept of non-duality is likely unreal. Separate and not separate. I prefer interdependent.

I cut you and you bleed, and the same for me. That's pretty real. Saying that's an illusion is bullshit.

This is why Zendo's of old had teaching sticks, particularly for their theoretically oriented students. Masters would hold up the stick and say "I'm real, stick real, your head real" whack whack whack.

 

followed by:

 

'Look at your thumb, consider the molecules and atoms there. Do you think whole universes are contained there?

 

If the kid looks at his thumb and even starts to consider it, whack whack whack whack.

my 2 cents

Either

..........Michael

......................Or you've written this yourself which makes it even MORE valid

LOL

I think if we have fear of ______ (safety, death, punishment, etc.) we're creating an object in our minds. For example, we fear the safety of a loved one because we have an idea about them, we love them for a bunch of reasons, experiences, memories, etc. ... basically because we have an image of that thing.

 

Lets assume we can see past the image of the thing, including the image of our self, and actually see it for what it is (whatever that is). Can there still be fear? Hmm...

The sutras say that when the idea of self vanishes so does fear. Apparently so does pain from some of the stories, but who knows, it could be myth. If one has no sense of a seperate self, what is there to fear for oneself? There is no self to fear for.

If we have an image of something, isn't that just a mental formation by the Buddhist definition? Mental formations only exist because we believe there is a self. Then we cling to the images for fear of loss, etc. It's easy to prove this stuff using Buddhist logic, but frankly it doesn't help much in everyday life does it. If you're about to lose your job, telling yourself that you don't really exist apart form everything else isn't going to feed your family.

In practical terms, we're drawn toward pleasure and repulsed by pain, or anything that is viewed as painful. Fear of whatever is painful. If we are afraid of confrontations we're afraid of the pain of loosing. If we yield because we're afraid and still feel pain because we didn't stand up for ourselves then what have we accomplished? If on the other hand we yield because it's the smart thing to do, for whatever reason, we can bask in the pleasure of making a wise decision.

Often times the root of fear is misunderstanding.

 

Fear many times leads to anger and outward aggression.

And what is the root cause of anger and aggression?

The corporate line from Buddhism is that the root of fear is self grasping. I happen to believe that because it makes sense to me. That begs the question, though: what is the root cause of fear for the safety of another? If it's someone you love, I would say its fear of loss, which is still self grasping. What if it's for someone you don't even know? Is the root then compassion?

Thanks Bruce, I'm going to go for it and see what happens.

 

Actually, I'm going for an O.M.D. (Doctor of Oriental Medicine). While ordinarily you'd think you would be able to support yourself after 6 years post-undergrad education, it isn't as accepted in western medicine yet. Hopefully my life will be dedicated to the cause of bringing credibility to therapies and healing methods outside of Allopathic medicine.

Sounds like a noble profession. I'm sure you'll be just fine.

Go with your gut DaoChild. I did for awhile, but at some point in university I veered toward the financial side. I was miserable an aweful lot of the next 23 years because of it (at work anyway). It's nice to have money. Money can provide opportunities you wouldn't have otherwise, but I would rather be doing something that made me want to get up in the morning than something that gave me a feeling of dread every Sunday morning, just thinking about the week ahead.

No matter what you choose you can always change, assuming you haven't gotten yourself tied to having to have the big paycheck. I think that's what happens to most of us, and once that happens breaking out is extremely hard. I can't tell you how many lawyers I've know who now hate being lawyers!

I had regrets for awhile, wishing I had followed my real interests, but it was just the path I chose and I wouldn't be who I am now otherwise. If I hadn't been miserable, I may have never sought out the spiritual side of life. It never occured to me until I was in my mid 30s.

Enough rambling from me.

It's interesting to me at what a young age our desire for stuff begins. My 4 year old (and this really started around 3 years old) watches the kiddy channels on telly say, "I want that". It's constant! Before Christmas, and this was the first year that he really got that Christmas means "I get stuff", he said "I want that" so damn much that I finally told him it would be easier if he just told us what he didn't want.

I would blame it on modern telly, but I was probably the same way and I'm 52. The boy is just like me. I'm worried.

Yep. We'll all be a few years older, if we're lucky. What more can we say with certainty.

I watched it a while back. It makes you think if you're open minded. You don't have to agree with it, but I would suggest anyone watch it and think for themselves. Draw your own conclusions.

Why do you guys doubt reincarnation?

 

It seems past lives come up pretty frequently in any type of spiritual therapies?

Because it's not proven, unless maybe you're enlightened and can see it for yourself, and I'm not.

My feeling is that it's not only possible, but probable. Rather than debate it and worry about it (which to me has become a waste of time and energy), I've decided to simply live this life as best I can. The rest will take care of itself.