forestofemptiness

I've experimented with meditation technology, but I personally did not find it helpful. What I do find helpful are subtle body practices, such as qigong and Tibetan exercises (like in Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche's Awakening the Sacred Body).

Well, it is one thing to say "everything which I experience is Brahman," and quite another to say "everything anybody experiences, has ever experienced, or ever will experienced, and anything beyond experience is also Brahman." This is the leap Sam is talking about. And if realized masters are able to experience this, and thereby experience all knowledge, then they sort of suck for not curing cancer, introducing sanitation in ancient times, etc. For it to be incorrigible, it has to be direct experience. In other words, one would have to experience being all minds, and beyond all mind, simultaneously.

I have an interesting little story. From time to time, I do a little lucid sleeping, and I used to spontaneously do it before I became a Buddhist. Back in college, I had a recurring dream. I was stuck in an empty void full of crackling energy. I had no body, no mind, no nothing. It was utterly terrifying. At the time, my primary paradigm was the Christian one, and based on some research I was fairly convinced that I was dreaming about Hell. Jump forward some decade or two, and I have a similar experience when a dream breaks apart. But now, it doesn't feel like hell at all--- it feels like an emptiness full of pregnant possibilities. The exact same experience, two very different results. The fear and terror I felt in college was a result of having nothing to grab onto. However, after practicing for some time, this "nothing to grab onto" feels liberating. Almost every Buddhist teacher I've held in high regard has said something similar. It is interesting to see how many things I discounted as ridiculous now seem to be quite plausible (rebirth being the biggest one for me).

As an aside, Berekeley, who denies the need to assert any material world, instead ascribes to God the functioning of the "objective world" when no one is watching. The initial problem, still, is the problem of universalizing one's experience. Rupert (in my mind) has a tendency to deny the use of inference, and then resurrect inference to support the views he likes. Is there a personal, non-inferential experience can one have that leads one to the conclusion, "[c]onsciousness is non-dual, and it appears to operate through these separate beings. It is the same consciousness that causes "absence of the world" of the world in the "deep sleepers", while simultaneously causes the "experience of the world" in the "wakers"."?

It is not that consciousness is equated to color-blindedness, it is the notion that "if I don't experience, it doesn't exist." So I think what Sam is critiquing here is not the primacy of consciousness for a subject, but the absence of an external, physical world (however you wish to define it--- as material, as consciousness, etc.). Do you deny the external world? I thought Vedanta gave the external, physical world provisional status. The states you set forth as just variations of the typical three: waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. Some teachers teach that there are varieties of all three states within the three states. To call "lucid dreaming" a state is to deny that dreams can have degrees of lucidity. Similarly, there can be degrees of lucidity in the waking or dreaming state, and also of the deep sleep state. This is the basis of disagreement between schools that say deep sleep is a state of ignorance until one attains lucidity in the deep sleep state, and other schools that deny this. Turiya is not actually a fourth state, but the basis for all states, as I recall. Incidentally, Swami Sarvapriyananda makes a good argument that the three states can be reduced to just two: dreaming and deep sleep. Waking is simply a more stable dream. IIRC, Greg Goode follows Atmananda in putting deep sleep as a form of nirvikapla samadhi as opposed to a state of ignorance. If there is a short video, I would like to see it.

Similarly, there is no good warrant for universalizing one's experience. Let's say I was color blind from birth. No matter how I looked, I could see no color. Would it make sense to deny color under all times and conditions? Of course not. But this is what Rupert does, in my mind.

I don't think that's Sam's point at all. In my mind, this argument is based on the confusion between epistemology and ontology. Rupert says that we cannot experience anything apart from consciousness (a statement about what we can know, or epistemology) , therefore nothing exists outside of consciousness (a statement about ontology). He further makes this claim on the basis on his own (or anyone's) current conscious experience, not from any ultimate POV. But as Sam points out, this is a mere tautology as experience and consciousness is the same thing. Sam's point is that when is under anesthesia, the world is still carrying on apart from one's conscious experience of it, which tends to support the idea of a world apart from one's conscious experience (or indeed, the conscious experience of any instantiated being).

I always have the fantasy that when I'm retired, I'll spend more time practicing. I've heard a lot of Tibetan stories about householders who, upon retirement, go into long term retreat and attain high states of realization. However, at one time, I had a few months between jobs. I thought, "wow, I will really use this time for practice." And I did. Practicing watching Netflix, going to the gym, walking around outside, going to book stores, reading, playing video games, sleeping in, etc. For some reason, I find it easier to practice when I have less time.

Are you still working @thelerner?

If you follow certain strands of Mahayana, your mind is just a giant cosmic vagina. As the routine goes (often mis-attributed to Betty White):

A major difference, though: in martial arts, a loss in real life can mean permanent damage or death. In spirituality, "losing" on the "battlefield" actually makes you better.

MNS, my comments are a bit tongue-in-cheek. Actually, the very idea that we can generalize and overlook the differences is something of an essentialist stance, which is often rejected in Buddhism. But the differences are significant. What tends to unite Buddhism are the 4 Noble Truths, the 5 dharma seals, and some development of mind training via some dynamic combination of shamatha (tranquility) and vipassana (insight). The 4 Noble Truths are: 1. There is suffering. 2. Suffering is a result of clinging/grasping. 3. Removing clinging/grasping removes suffering. 4. You do this by following the 8 Fold Path (Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration). The Dharma Seals are: 1. All compounded things are impermanent 2. All impure phenomenon are suffering 3. All phenomenon are empty of inherent existence 4. Nirvana is the only peace

That looked like cop-fu to me. Watching these fights, I cannot tell style (except that ridiculous kick in this video). Most of it looks like generic kickboxing and generic grappling. Some styles tend to be better at these than others. Making a transition from practice with forms and hitting bags to actually fighting another person (even with rules) is such a paradigm shift that I would say it is like learning a new style. I presume there is a similar paradigm shift from ring fighting to street fighting (with its weapons, multiple opponents, different environments and elements of surprise).

Well, take something as simple as Buddhism. Do you mean: Zen (Rinzai or Soto), Chan (Caodong, Linji, or one of the other five houses), Seon, Thien, Theravada (sutta based or Abhidhamma based? hard jhana, soft jhana, or dry insight? Thai forest tradition, Thai non-forest tradition, Burmese, or Tantric? Traced to Goenka, Mahasi, U Pandita, Ajahn Chah etc.?), Tibetan Buddhism (Gelug, Kagyu, Nyingma, Sakya, Jonang, Rime, Bon, or some mix of some or all?); Pureland, Nichiren, Tendai, Jodo Shu, Shingon, etc. This is not even going into subdivisions, schools I've forgotten or am unaware of, etc. Each of them is going to be different. Even in the same school and the same sub-set, different teachers are going to approach it differently.

Groping around is part of the search, in my mind. It helps build discernment. Plus, you never know what's going to work for any particular person.

I agree with CT, and add that there may be some compelling reasons to NOT fret over the length of sitting practice. Typically, people who try to do long sits are following a more traditional paradigm. In the traditional Buddhist paradigm (Suttas and Abhdidhamma), longer meditation periods were prescribed for celibate monastics, often in a retreat setting under the supervision of a teacher. This usually involved developing deep states of concentration called jhana. In the non-traditional setting, this type of practice can actually harden the mind, rendering it less sensitive. It can also result in blocking thoughts and creating an artificial "void." It can also result in dull states that are often confused with jhana. Really, there is no end to states that the mind can create. In some cases, people can have severe adverse reactions. Accordingly, I would not recommend this type of practice outside of a retreat and/or without a teacher available. Of course, there are other methods that do not require such practices, although the traditionalists often deny it. When folks have trouble with sitting, I would wager it is one of three major issues: physical issues, energetic issues, or mind issues. Physical issues include lack of proper posture, injuries, poor health, etc. Energetic issues are more subtle. If your subtle channels are not opened somewhat, sitting can be quite difficult, especially in the legs. Finally, there are mind problems--- boredom, agitation, etc. All of these are different problems with different solutions.

I had one for many years on a shelf at home that my friend got me from India in the mid-1990's. I put it on a shelf for many years. Then one day, I had the chance to connect with non-dual Shaiva Tantra. Now it usually sits on my Buddhist altar. I've tended to stop thinking about these things so linearly.

My experience of course is anecdotal, but I've been involved in a number of martial arts classes over the years. In every class, there were the fighter and non-fighters. Every "fight" story I've heard was either 1) a fight they picked or escalated or 2) a fight they could have avoided. I've been told that in my area, MMA people like to go to bars and try to start fights. I don't hang out at bars, so I don't know. But ask yourself--- how many mature adults actually get into fights? Not many. So if I were to generalize, most people who are using their MA skills are picking fights. The same thing happens with the military. When you give a person a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Good fighters, IME, develop a type of violent mentality. However, a good martial artist will develop awareness and calmness. Ironically, the leading causes of death are health and stress related. So a martial art that teaches one to discipline and stress reduction is probably a better choice than learning to fight. And as far as violent death goes, the person most likely to kill you is yourself (suicide). The second most likely person is one's male partner (boyfriend/husband).

I would say familiarity breeds contempt. In the West, we have romanticized old Tibet. We see it as a peaceful, idyllic place where everyone got along and acted like HHDL, inspired by many "Shangri-La" depictions in the West. This is not the case, as there are many controversies and reports about possible feudalism, torture, assassination, religious persecution, etc. (although some of this is based on Chinese propaganda, as an attempt to justify their own torture, genocide, etc). If you review some oral histories and grounded research you will find great spiritual development along with some dark things.

So your plan is to used unarmed fighting skills in a home invasion, or against a meth head with a glock? You may wish to rethink that. It seems to me the people most likely to need MA skills against an unarmed attacker are not the people I generally see at MA classes-- namely women.

You know what Buddhist call optical illusions? That's right. You ARE a crypto-Buddhist! Welcome brother!

Where is everyone living that they need a high level of skill in unarmed fighting? Is there a weapons free island or zone like in all the 1980's martial arts movies? Or is this for secret underground bloodsport tournaments?

We're playing Shankaracharya rules, right? Loser coverts? The subject need not be dependent on the object, nor the object on the subject. Rather, the appearance of a subject depends on an object, and vice versa. They are interdependent. Similarly, if there were no movies, there could be no movie screens. I suppose we could imagine a theoretical Subject in which no object ever appears, but that would not be relevant to the current situation, because objects have appeared. The problem with asserting independence is that is denies a relationship. A relationship is a coming together, a merging, a union. According, if the Self were truly changeless and independent, there would be no knowing objects because 1) knowing a rising/falling object is a change; or 2) Subject and object would be completely separate. This is the problem that always sinks dualities: when you posit two separate things, there's no way to bring them together, because the very act of bringing them together negates the separation (and thus any sort of independence). That's why many philosophies tend to argue over what kind of thing everything is (materialism = everything is matter; idealism = everything is mind; monism = everything is God), as dualities cannot be maintained. From a Buddhist POV, you never really find an atomic one or essence to anything, because nothing can really be pinned down, and all attempts to pin things down are merely conceptual. Part of the problem is that we take our concepts to be real when they're not. I mean, look at all the issues we have with trying to even define a self! Switching from a unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable Self to an unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable "Being" does not shore up the case. Of course, many accused the Mahayana of "smuggling in the Atman!"

The way I think about it, there is a fundamental logical contradiction that is apparent: everything is completely empty and lacking any self, yet there is all of this phenomenon appearing like.... well, like magic. As Mipham Rinpoche says, "appearing yet empty; empty yet appearing," or the Heart Sutra's "form is emptiness, emptiness form" or the traditional 8 similes of illusion or the Longchenpa's second vajra point. Now a lot of people like to rely on the simile portion, saying it is "like" this or that. To me, I tend to follow the logic, much like Gendun Chophel: I struggled with this for a long time, until I started to look into quantum physics. Quantum physics introduces experiments that boggle logic. There are similar logic boggling things that arise in practice and in sleep/dream yoga. Accordingly, I feel I had to make a choice: my logical framework, or direct experience. In the end, I realized I had little choice but to embrace paradox. Appearances are fundamentally mysterious, and wonderful. In other words, magic. In Buddhism, the texts are replete with reference to "illusions" and "illusory" nature. However, Bob Thurman pointed out in English this is a little demeaning, so he prefers the term "magical." Similarly, on the Yogacara side of Mahayana, everything we experience is a transformation of consciousness, a literal dream. To paraprhase B. Alan Wallace, waking is dreaming with conditions, and night dreaming is dreaming without conditions. Again, that strikes as as eminently magical. Interesting side note: I always wondered about the magical illusion simile in Buddhism, where rocks and string can take the form of elephants and so on. Jan Westerhoff pointed out what this was in one of his books:

@dwai, glad you can assist me in avoiding doing things I don't want to do. This sounds like an argument for the emptiness of the Atman. Let's check: 1. "It cannot be captured with any of the sensory apparatuses. It cannot be described by the mind. If the mind tries to find it, it fails and finds only stillness and silence instead." In addition, "it is not something that can be experienced using the normal faculties and apparatuses (like the mind and the inner and outer senses)" In other words, it is not findable under analysis. There is nothing for the mind to grasp onto as there is nothing fixed, substantial, findable, etc. i.e. = empty. 2. In order to not be empty, it should have an independent, unitary, permanent self. a. Is it independent? No: the Atman is described as "as pure subject predicate, without which no manifestation can happen." Accordingly, it is not independent, it relates to manifestation. b. Is it permanent? No: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." c. Is it unitary? No, for reason #2. 3. Assertion to the contrary: "This root does not change", however, this is just a way of speaking since "both space and time appear in it." How can one talk about change without space and time? Change means time, which means we're already outside of this "Atman" and into manifestation. 4. Explicit confirmation that it is empty: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." and "Atman is the selfless Self. It is the lightless light." Using contradictory words right next to each other suggests a mutual negation, i.e. that it doesn't really fit in one or the other. So... perhaps this Atman is truly not-self after all? If not, what is its essence (keeping in mind it cannot be described in terms of the senses or mental categories)?