forestofemptiness

What's your source for that statement, or any of your statements about jhana please? If you want to freshen up on jhanas from a tradiitonal POV, grounded in Abdhidharma, then you can read these articles. Even traditionally, the minimum is access concentration (upacarasamadhi). https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Samatha-yana and Vipassana-yana_Cousins_1984.pdf The strength and intensity of jhana is up for considerable debate, a part of the so-called "jhana wars." http://www.leighb.com/jhanantp.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyāna_in_Buddhism#Contemporary_reassessment_-_the_"Jhana_wars" Of course, all of that applies to Theravada, and we're not even scratching the surface of Mahayana.

Sure. One does not jump straight into Buddhahood. Formal practice is very important, especially for those of us who aren't fully realized. And exchanging worldly desires for dharmic desires is usually a part of the path, and of course reducing many desires to one (the desire for nirvana, or for Bodhisattvas, the desire to liberate all beings) can be quite skillful. Acting like we're fully realized can be a big, big problem. But we can also collect techniques, empowerments, mantras, spiritual experiences, etc. the same way we collect material things. In that sense, it may be just more samsara (i.e. replacing metal handcuffs with golden ones).

Interesting points, LL. I'll share my thoughts. I think so. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoch said, "If you've had a good meditation, or a bad meditation, you haven't had a meditation." And his son, Mingyur Rinpoche says "The expectations that you bring to your meditation are often the greatest obstacles you will encounter." As Tilopa said to Naropa, "My son, appearance does not bind you, it's your grasping that binds you." So the problem is grasping, as set forth by the Buddha in the second Noble truth. I would offer that the practice is to overcome this habitual grasping that we have developed. Typically, the practices are twofold: with a shamatha component and a vipassana component. Shamatha takes many forms, but basically it is about tranquility or calming the mind. But it is the insight or vipassana component that generally has the ability to liberate. People who grasp at meditation experiences are usually said to be cultivating a rebirth as an animal (for cultivating dullness) or the god realms (for the higher states). However, to steal a phrase from Rob Burbea, it is the "seeing that frees," i.e. the insights as set forth in the practices. Now generally, as shamatha increases, vipassana becomes easier, and vipassana itself is calming to the mind. So these are actually quite dynamic, even in the Pali sources. However, I would proffer that the basic model is not about extending a cultivated experience, but rather removing something --- namely, ignorance and grasping. In addition, it is generally well taught that shamatha, as it depends on causes and conditions, cannot be made permanent. All conditioned phenomenon are impermanent. What is considered unconditioned in the Abhidharma is space and nirvana. But nirvana is not constructed, rather it arises when ignorance is removed. It reminds me of TTC 48: "Pursue knowledge, daily gain. Pursue Tao, daily loss. Loss and more loss, until one reaches non-action." (Derek Lin trans.).

It seems to me that Astral Projection is a form of lucid dreaming.

He notes in his BATGAP interview (15-17:00) that Taoist alchemy is used to fuel and stabilize a state of being, specifically awakening. He then states that people may have a meditation experience (the example he uses is a unity experience), but lacking the underlying energetic support, this experience fades. I found this interesting, because from a Buddhist POV, this is exactly the opposite approach. Meditation experiences are often referred to as "makyo" in Zen and "nyams" in Tibetan. Rather than attempt to stabilize or prolong them, they are to be let go of because, as with everything else, they are impermanent, not self, and dissatisfying.

The government was into some weird stuff in the 1980's, like trying to learn how to kill goats with the mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

Great attitude. I couldn't get 10 minutes into this one, for various reasons.

Sorry, I am a questioner by nature. Please take no personal offense.

Nice translation. Definitely better than Reynold's, IMHO. Is that from Brown? I don't see this contradicting Reggie Ray's article nor Longchenpa, personally. False typically means to me empty, but of course because things are empty, they are also pure. However, just because phenomenon are pure doesn't mean they aren't deceptive--- they do appear at times to be separate, solid, existing, etc. But this would be a result of one's ignorance rather than any inherent deficiency in phenomenon.

I would be curious as to what texts you are thinking of. RR does have a basis for "false" narrative. Most Dzogchen creation "myths" rely on ignorance. For example, Longchenpa states for instance: https://www.shambhala.com/second-vajra-point-magical-illusion/

So Buddhism could, for example, jettison all teachings on morality (sila) without losing its efficacy? Or start teaching that all compounded things are permanent, etc.? You could have Mahayana without compassion? Vajrayana without a teacher? I definitely don't see it that way. I'm not sure what the minimum would be, but I am fairly certain that at a certain point, the dharma will no longer be effective (which is usually when it is time for another Buddha to show up). However, I do not know and have never met a person wherein a single drop of rain was enough (maybe one of those instant enlightenment types we sometimes hear about), so it is not coherent to me in the same way it might be coherent to others with differing experiences. I know the Pragmatic Dharma folks take Theravada as a starting point, but often edit it at will. I have not been impressed with the results, but again, one's individual mileage may vary. For me, taking some of the base or common teachings more seriously turned my practices around. For example, once I started to take morality more seriously, my concentration improved and insights began to bloom. Contrariwise, when I stray from morality, my mind becomes too agitated to even practice. However, this to me does not change that the dharma is also flexible, dependent on time/place/manner.

Do you think there is a limit to Buddhism's flexibility? That at a certain point, it loses its efficacy?

Not disagreeing at all (rather, I agree with everything written), but just riffing. I think the flexibility of Buddhism has allowed it to spread widely, more widely than nearly every other religion other than Christianity (and perhaps Islam). But many other religions don't expand as far from their native cultural context--- I'm thinking of Judaism, Vedanta, Daoism, etc. There is always a tension with flexibility, but also maintaining its vitality. There is an interesting passage in SN 16.13: https://suttacentral.net/sn16.13/en/sujato Per Bhante Akalika, in this sutta, "the Buddha states that the disappearance of the true teaching won’t happen like a ship that sinks all at once, but rather, it will disappears gradually, bit by bit." https://lokanta.github.io/2021/01/21/curious-case/ I thought this was an interesting observation.

It is not about having an epistemology, it is about using epistemological limits as a basis for inferring ontological absence. In this case, when knowledge is limited, the actual answer should be "I don't know," not "no." It is like covering one's eyes and stating that the entire world has disappeared. Absence of knowledge does not mean absence of "being" so to speak. In some ways, it is the same error materialists make: all I can see are physical, material things, so they deny the immaterial, such as consciousness, or attempt to reduce consciousness to the brain. This is of course very short-sighted as the appearance of so-called physical things are merely appearances in the mind. Certain strands of Buddhism avoid this by stating, "Well, it doesn't matter what is or isn't the case, what matters is experience, so let's focus on that."

I've noticed over the years here (way back when it was the Tao Bums) is that there is often a focus on unusual powers. But there are a number of ancillary questions one could ask: 1. Does X have unusual powers? 2. If X does, is X willing to teach others how to develop them? 3. If so, how much time and effort is required to develop them? 4. Have others followed this regime to the fruition? 5. Do I have the time and discipline to follow such a regime? 6. Is developing unusual powers worth the time and effort? Actually, these might be worth considering in reverse order.

I had the opposite experience. I enjoyed Rupert at one time, but over time, I have soured. I wouldn't consider him a neo- (like Tony Parsons, Wayne Liquorman, Sailor Bob, et. al.). The aforementioned Greg Goode (who is also cited at various points by Swami S) classifies him as "Direct Path." The problem I see is that the approach is a bit too simplistic. Watching many videos of Rupert, and having tuned into some live sessions (and even questioning him myself), I feel he has a prepared script, and if there is any deviation, he gets quite angry and defensive. He is also quite dismissive of all forms of knowledge other than his own (i.e. he said that he didn't want to tell his son there was basically no point to school). He appears less interested in understanding questions that are put to him than getting back to his "script." Overall, I find his presentation fairly rigid. Finally, I don't get the impression that he is really familiar with the basic landscape of meditation. This is hard to quantify, but it's like hearing some one else talk about a city they've read about, but you've actually been there, and it doesn't line up. Which is not to say that I am any sort of meditation expert, but I have done a little from time to time. For me, there is also a certain power (shakti)? of being connected to an authentic lineage. And when so connected, the very cosmos itself seems to come alive in an effort to further one's awakening. I don't get that with Rupert. Of course, these are all my own subjective impressions. But the epistemology/ontology thing is hard for me to let go of, because it feels to me like sophistry.

The person who taught me the most (informally and experientially) was a student of Swami Satchidananda (among others). I prefer Swami Sarvapriyananda for listening to talks, although Carole Whitfield helped with a number of things. At any rate, I am too skeptical and contrary to be anything other than a Buddhist.

I certainly take issue with these statements. Rupert has always rubbed me the wrong way--- I think his approach is a bit simplistic and philosophically unfounded. Traditional AV has my deepest respect.

I think it is. It is an invitation to disengage--- from the world, from politics, from mundane suffering. It is not uncommon especially in the Western Buddhist community to delay helping until one is wiser, more enlightened, etc. I personally think disengagement is a mistake-- it can be a form of spiritual bypassing, just on an external scale. It is a bit of the "hooray for me, and f@$& you" ethic that is so dominant in modern American culture. One of my teachers always admonished us to "do our best." Wisdom develops with time, but I see no reason to NOT help where you can, even if the ego is involved, because ego will be involved for a long, long time. Help can come in many ways: small donations, a bit of kindness, a vote. To paraphrase Shunryu Suzuki said, you may not be able to save the world, but you can take care of your little corner.

Have you considered that your knowledge of Buddhism may be... idiosyncratic? I didn't say simply intention, but largely intention. Per the Tibetan teachers, it typically involves multiple factors, but intention is always the most important. This is Buddhism 101: "Intention (cetana), I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." AN 6.63 https://web.archive.org/web/20140813042845/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html Karma, then, is an instance of the general law of causality. What makes karma unique is that it involves intentional action, and therefore an agent. The natural causal processes operating in the world cannot be termed karmic where there is no agent involved. In order for a causal process to be a karmic one, it must involve an individual whose intention would lead to a particular action. It is this specific type of causal mechanism which is known as karma. HHDL, The Four Noble truths, pp.74-75 For the Buddha, though it literally means action, the meaning of karma is intention, or intentionality. He equates karma with intention. Gil Fronsdale, teacher/translator https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/transcribed-talks/karma-and-intention/ Kamma, actually, just means action. In the India of the Buddha, that's how it was understood. In order to make people aware of what it really implies, the Buddha said: "Kamma, oh monks, I declare, is intention," which arises first in our thoughts, then generates speech and action. This was the new interpretation that the Buddha gave to kamma, because it was largely misunderstood and used as predetermined destiny. Ayya Khema, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/herenow.html#ch6

Right? We can spin the story in many directions.

Are you suggesting that Brahman is merely the sum total of all sentient beings? I think this is a difference in our world views. I don't see strong evidence of Divine Providence guiding or directing the world. Some do, and that's great. From a Buddhist POV, without a strong central God-like character, all of us sentient beings are stuck in this mess together, and need to help each other out as best we can. From a Buddhist POV, karma is largely intention. And while the workings of karma are clear, the fruition is mysterious. There is a pretty good story about this from Xin Yun. A scholar and a Chan master are in line for a ferry. The scholar sees the ferryman pushing a boat through the sand, killing many small creatures. The scholar asks who is responsible for the deaths, the ferryman or the passengers? The Chan master says, "It's your fault!"

Here's a question: for a medical doctor, should one actually treat any patients? Why not leave them to their karma? Maybe by curing them in this life, one is hurting them in the long run?

An interesting aside (for now): I once had a dream where I met a dream being. Sometimes, when I become lucid in a dream, I start to tell the "others." Often, they ignore me, carrying on with what they are doing. In this one dream, things went something like this: Me (M) to Dream Being (DB): I'm dreaming right now. Isn't that so cool? DB: No, I'm dreaming right now. You're appearing in MY dream as a figment of my imagination. M: Oh yeah? Can you do this? (I fly around). DB: Yes. He flies around. M: Can you do this? (I change weather) DB: Of course. (changes weather) Etc.

Well, unless one takes a Brahman-eyed view, how does one verify Brahman?