The Dao Bums
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About forestofemptiness

  • Rank
    Maximum Strength Anatman

Recent Profile Visitors

7,471 profile views
  1. Mantras

    It is fairly common knowledge in Vajrayana, and can be found in most beginner books and is often mentioned in live teachings. A simple Google search will produce a variety of sources, from Khenchen Thrangu to Tsongkahpha.
  2. Mantras

    You can practice it, but I imagine being a sutra method, the Vajrayana view would be that such practices would take three countless eons.
  3. Mantras

    The traditional explanation I have heard in Shaivite and Buddhist tantra is that one must receive the mantra in person from some one who has successfully “activated” the mantra—- i.e practiced it to fruition.
  4. Qigong techniques for better, longer, deeper sleep?

    Have you tried non-qigong techniques? Such as: limiting/eliminating caffeine; shutting down all electronics at least an hour before bed; adjusting the temperature of the room; meditating before bed, wearing an eye mask; etc.?
  5. Daoism as a Practical Philosophy

    For me, what distinguishes Daoism from other spiritual philosophies is the focus on the embodied aspect of the teachings. Understanding wu wei is one thing, but having a felt sense of wu wei in the body is another. The kicker is that wu wei is actually the only way to really go. Considering the cosmos as a vast and interconnected set of relationships, there is no way to resist that--- it is like a fly trying to hold back a Tsunami. Even more so, all the thoughts and impulses we have, including the thoughts and impulses to resist, spontaneously pop up on their own. We don't sit at a work bench and mold them like an artist might mold clay cups and vases.
  6. Chidabhasa

    I didn't say it was illogical. I said I couldn't make sense of it. In this case, I mean phenomenologically, i.e. as a matter of experience. Analogically, perhaps the best metaphor to use is space given it is unchanging, attribute-less, etc. It seems to me that the term "chidabhasa" can be applied differently: 1. To "pure awareness" or "pure consciousness," i.e. the unchanging, objectless, awareness that is ever present like a golden thread connecting all experiences, and yet never apart from any object or experience which arises; or 2. Some sort of object. This could be the mind, the "I am," the ahamkara, etc. My feeling is that it is pointing to #1 in an effort to reconcile our experience with the proclamations found in the Vedas. Our experience is never universal. For example, I may experience a waking state centered on my body-mind; a dreaming state centered on a fluid body-mind; or deep sleep that is not centered on any body mind. However, I never experience looking out from some one else's eyes. Nor have I ever had the experience of looking out through all body-minds. So I suppose I would say that it appears to be saying Brahman + upadhis = jivatman = chidabhasa. In other words, Brahman under the limitations of ignorance is not really Brahman (the sun) it is a pseudo-Brahman (the reflection). However, you all seem to be saying that it is pointing to a #2. Commendation
  7. Chidabhasa

    From time to time, I like to vary my learning up by learning about Advaita. Usually these days, this means listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda. One thing that has come up again that doesn't make sense to me is the idea of chidabhasa, reflected consciousness. The way it is described by Swami S is fairly in line with how it is presented by Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Dayandanda, and others. Basically, the idea is that the subtler part of the mind somehow "reflect" the universal consciousness. Swami S usually related the chidabhasa to "the awareness which we feel right now." The analogy is typically used on the single sun reflected in many pots of water. To me, this doesn't really make sense for at least a few reasons: we are using physical objects to stand in for a non-physical, non-object (a common issue); 2) it implies that our present awareness is somehow illusory; and 3) it would mean that our awareness somehow "changes" from what it presently is to something else later on. Thoughts? For some one interested but doesn't know what I am referring to, here is a fast outline. He talks about chidabhasa around the 6:25 mark.
  8. Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis

    Well, I decided to take a chance. I just finished the first week. The other night, I came home fairly late. My wife asked how it went. "Well," I said, "It was something I haven't had at these classes for a long time." "What's that?" she asked. "It was--- fun," I said. "You never say that," she said. It's true. I have taken different MA classes over the years, and with the exception of a kick boxing class in college, none of them have been any fun. They may be fun at some parts, but certainly the entire experience is more work than fun. Some have been informative. Some have been useful. But none of them have been any fun. Usually, they are hard work. Or boring. Or a bit of both. It was also easy. They have obviously put in a lot of thought on how to teach people. And also multi-layered, with a heavy focus on meditation and mindfulness of the body. The teaching seemed pretty in line with what I have encountered at some other reputable schools. Obviously, it just started, but just thought I would share some of my initial impressions. I may have a different opinion in a few months.
  9. From a bio-evolutionary perspective, we as humans tend to develop stereotyped, abstract thoughts because it is quicker and more efficient than conducting a thorough individual analysis. So when we see something that looks gross, we don't eat it. The gross thing may be high in nutrition, but we would rather reject too many things than ingest something bad. One odd result is the phenomenon of seeing faces in things, like Jesus in a tortilla. We are wired in some ways to see faces, even if there aren't any, because it is better to see a face that isn't really there than to miss one that is really there. So do we see patterns because they are there, or do we impose patterns because it makes it easier to navigate the world?
  10. Well, there are some fairly clear connections between the political right wing and occultism. Gary Lachman wrote a book all about it, talking about the "occult" influences with Trump and Putin. Many occultists have been a part of their inner circle. Steve Bannon was (to my surprise) a vocal supporter of Julius Evola. Putin has Alexander Dugin. Both Trump and Putin promote a chaotic, "truth is what I say it is" combined with an sense of absolutism that is useful in implementing a strong, facist type of government. This is not to say that they are practicing occultists in the traditional sense, but Trump traces many of his ideas to Norman Vincent Peale, who presents a sort of "occultism" for the masses. Mitch Horowitz out the occult influences on America in his book "Occult America." Both books are fairly straightforward examinations of occult ideas on modern culture and politics.
  11. Death of Sogyal Rinpoche

    Just to toss it out there, in Tibetan Buddhist circles it is considered extremely poor taste to speak poorly of the dead during the 7 week bardo period.
  12. IMA and Awakening

    What is the criteria by which to evaluate that a person is awakened?
  13. Mixing systems

    First, I would be careful about being too quick to judge teachers --- they will typically not live up to our book/movie conditioned expectations. Teachers aren't perfect. I wouldn't reject some one because they had a cough. Second, I worked with open source Kriya in the past. I have been the definition of a spiritual dilettante, jumping from practice to practice. I think there is a lot of wisdom in picking and staying with a single practice, but the problem is uncovering what that practice is. Some people pick a practice that doesn't really suit them, and so don't do it. The reason I became a Buddhist isn't because Buddhism is the best, greatest, etc. It is the practice that I kept doing, day in and out, over a long period of time. All other forms of practice eventually fell away. In my opinion, I think there could be a conflict. First, the visualizations are different. Kriya is more based on classical Indian models whereas qigong is based on Chinese models. While there is some overlap, when conditioning the mind into the tradition, it may introduce an element of confusion. I don't think this would be same if you were well grounded in one tradition, and then learned another. Second, the methods may be quite different. Classical India concentration practices may be more focused, excluding, and active than some Chinese models. It is possible that these would work at cross-purposes. So you may be building skills in one that you undo with the other. Again, I think this is less likely with a strong grounding in one practice. One way to experiment is to try one method for a short period of time--- two weeks or a month. Then try another. See which one you like. Some models suit people better than others and appeal more than others. No technique works in a vacuum. A final point is that if you really want to go deep into these practices, you will need guidance from a live teacher. So availability of a teacher may be another factor to consider.
  14. Thoughts on Energy Arts / B.K. Frantzis

    I think there are two aspects of Daoist arts that we mix up: martial arts and spiritual arts. Personally, I am more interested in spiritual arts. I have spent a number of years in various fighting-based clubs. I am always unsure what to think about CMA (Chinese Martial Arts) students who talk about fighting ability. As I recall, in the heady, madcap 1990's the Gracie family decided to put to the test which martial art was the best. As it turns out, it is probably a combination of Western boxing, Brazilian jiu-justu, and Thai kickboxing. Usually CMA people who I have known to be fighters are already scrappers, but I have almost never heard of some one using CMA against an aggressive and unwilling opponent. Nor have I heard of a CMA initiate putting the slap down on well-trained MMA fighters. If that were the case, professional fighters would be training CMA. In addition, most people who actually fight a lot (i.e. police and military) tend to take up MMA rather than CMA. Most of the fighting discussed in this thread appears to take place between two CMA practitioners in a limited environment. As I recall, Bruce Lee realized this as a limitation of CMAs and adjusted his own fighting accordingly by drawing on other fighting styles. The only exception to this for me was a person who trained under Mike Patterson. He allowed for fairly free flowing sparring in his classes which often degraded quickly. A nth degree Tae Kwon Do black belt/instructor took a hit to the face and never returned. The teacher however, could take on MMA guys half his age. He had ability, but it only came with years of hard, full time training and exercise. I have heard of CMA folks who also fight, but it is not clear to me whether they were utilizing their CMA or if they were just brawlers. In addition, they seem to be looking for fights (most adults do not ever get into fights), which suggests that their spiritual development is lacking. And given that most people do not get into fights, many of these "in the world fights" may be against untrained, out-of-shape people.
  15. Interesting. I was raised Catholic and actually became quite deeply involved with Christianity in my late teens. I took refuge as a Buddhist about 15 years ago. I still like to dip into the Christian pool from time to time, especially the works of David Bentley Hart. I like the mystics, but I can no longer understand the lay believer. But I was listening to an old high school friend who is now a pastor on a podcast. He was meeting with another pastor. The first thing they said was "Well, what do you believe?" It seemed so strange to me. They then proceeding to discuss their beliefs intellectually, referring to the Bible. The whole thing struck me as surreal. Usually, when I meet other spiritual practitioners, we typically talk experiences. It seemed weird to hear people discuss things that were so far from their daily experience (such as whether Jesus did such and such or Paul said so and so). They spent a lot of time discussing whether the Bible taught whether people were chosen to be saved or not. I don't know about that. When I was a young Catholic, I felt guilty a lot. A LOT. As a Buddhist, I never feel guilty. I may feel ignorant, or non-compassionate, or detached, or miserable but not guilty. As a Catholic, that mankind was inherently impure and could only be cured through the sacrifice of God's blood. As a Buddhist, I have come to realize that people are inherently good, and that right or wrong are a matter of perception. It is not a matter of sin but of ignorance. I'm sure there are some Buddhists who fall in the same sort of Catholic line, but not the ones I have known. When I took refuge, the nun explained that if you were trying to quit drinking, and you cut down from drinking 7 beers a day to 6, you were making progress. As a Catholic, a sin was a sin. End of story. So I would warrant that you're reading "sin" awfully broadly. Every spiritual system identifies an issue--- even the Daoists. Otherwise, what is the point of cultivating?