forestofemptiness

This is an issue many teachers have addressed with Tibetan practices--- relaxing the body, especially when conducting holds and locks. However, many of us due to various reasons tend to tense up, and also push ourselves for some goal, which is problematic.

I have asked many teachers similar questions, and they have replied in line with what @steve has said. I think it makes a difference if you are doing a health type practice or a spiritual type practice. Although in my experience, the healthiest qigong practitioners also do something else (usually physical exercises and/or martial arts). Just keep in mind that time and attention tend to be limited resources (especially if you have or expect to have a family and full time job). Accordingly, it may be worth assessing how much time you actually have to spend on other practices, and whether that time would be better spent on the practices you already have. This is especially the case given the variety and diversity of practices one can encounter in the Tibetan realm. More than likely, after a certain point you end up dropping certain practices due to time/energy. Of course, if you are just starting, then it is a different story. I do think there are different emphases based on the practice and the tradition, or even within the same tradition. So basically, by training up some skills, you may be training down others.

I think the better way to look at it is the experience of God rather than the existence of God (or more often is the case a god). God is typically inferred from a series of experiences that a practitioner has, and I would say these experiences are the same but the interpretations are different. So for example, an experience of limitless consciousness to a Christian may be interpreted as experiencing an external being that is limitless, whereas to a Buddhist it would be the experience of one's mind (of course, this is gross oversimplification).

I live in a decriminalized state, so a lot of people take and swear by medical marijuana for pain, even pain not responsive to conventional medications. Not sure if that’s an option. I’m sure you’re spending a lot of time researching. For meditation, usually the prescription from a Tibetan Buddhist POV is tonglen, compassion practices (ie Chenrezig) or metta meditation. Mingyur Rinpoche has a meditation on pain, but these really depend on the individual. His brother Tsoknyi Rinpoche has a course Fully Being that I found helpful for different kinds of pain. May be worth checking with a traditional Chinese medicine doctor if you haven’t already—- you never know. Asking for help from a higher power. May you find relief from suffering and the causes of suffering.

This is the most Daobums things I've come across in a while: experiential, "hacking," applicable to multiple forms of meditation, seems effective. From Forrest Knutson, a kriyaban.

I'd appreciate it if one of you siddhi folks could inform me of my experience. Shouldn't be too hard, right? Preferably if you bilocate, I'll make you a cup of coffee. It's not either or. It's both and. Study, contemplation, meditation is the Buddhist trifecta. People who are engaging in Buddhist practice should at least be versed in the basics. Siddhis are based, like everything else, on causes and conditions and karma. What gets lost with people who tend to praise siddhis is wisdom, and it is the wisdom that counts from a Buddhist POV. For example, in this Sutta, some one asks how monks can be enlightened without psychic powers. Spoiler: he realized the foolishness of his view. https://suttacentral.net/sn12.70/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Hopefully this is a guess and not an expression of a siddhi... See, this is what I mean. This is quite a leap from an online comment to a judgment about an entire system and tradition, which I see as a pattern. Of course, lacking telepathy, this is just my speculation. Maybe it's all just skillful means and I'm not developed enough to see it.

Yes, and unfortunately the stuff that you have written is not born out in the Buddhist sources. In Buddhist practice, there are generally three ways to check knowledge: experience, teacher, and scripture. If teachers are not consistent with Buddhist scripture there's an issue. Historical research suggests that the SE Asian meditative traditions were have now are fairly recent innovations, and trace back to a few extremely ascetic monks in the 1800's due to the pressures of colonization. Of course they think their way is the true way, the Buddha's way, etc. But every Buddhist sect claims that. But there's no reason to accept it, especially if is not supported by the suttas or the commentarial tradition. It's just another story. But the Buddha put forth 84,000 dharma gates for all sorts of individuals. Taking one gate as the one and only gate misses the point. And appealing to siddhis and magic powers--- well, greed is one of the primary elements driving samsara. I don't see how that is especially conducive to attracting spiritual seekers capable of achieving high levels of realization. I do see how it's attractive to people who want power and magic-- i.e. the vast majority of humanity. Beyond that rare person, there are many, many more who can benefit from techniques like the one presented here. People with jobs and families and everyday anxieties. People who are stressed about the economy and COVID. People who might come looking on the web for something to help them get through another day. As you said yourself, you have no problem with the technique. So why trash it?

This is the universal statement: This statement: is not always true. For example, applied thought and sustained thought are typically used for not only access concentration, but the first jhana as well as they are listed as jhanic factors for both Sutta jhana and Visudhamagga jhana. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html In some traditions, it may be true, although it is more typical for a method to be learned before it is dropped in my experience.

Well, if people are interested and listen to the videos, it is fairly clear that these are stepping stones. Saying X is not meditation and saying X is not meditation the way you understand it are two different statements. One of them is put forth as a universal and the other is a qualified statement of opinion. If one wants to have a serious exchange, one should set forth one's definition and the source from which it comes. Of course, if one just wants to argue, carry on.

I think some of his general videos (like HRV) may be more generally applicable, but the more kriya or yogic centered ones may not be. I don't think Daoists are against the third eye, having a correlate in the upper dan tian. However, focusing energy higher in the body can lead to issues (the same goes with Vajrayana).

HRV appears to accelerate quietening my mind, not unlike being on retreat. I've been doing it for 5-10 minutes prior to my regular meditation, and so far is seems to make a substantial difference. I note that in Dr. Gevirtz's video, he says you really only need to do it 10-20 min per day to get good effects (even while, as he does, listening to podcasts! ). Forrest does introduce some reasons why he thinks the old methods may not work as well today as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. Consider that indoor electricity is only 100-200 years old, much less more modern things such as how the internet and TV has shaped our brains. Even back then, a lot of meditation instructions begin with "go to a secluded place." Anyway, I just thought I'd put it out there in case others might want to fiddle with it also as it is more of an enhancement than a new meditation method altogether (i.e. it's not kriya). Unfortunately, the interview doesn't seem to work.

In addition to stability, there is also the dimension of penetrative depth. I am amazed by the sheer number of objects in increasing subtlety the mind can find and cling to--- mostly because this is what I did. From formed objects to formless ones, subtle ones, feelings and sensations. It is amazing how very deeply ingrained this object orientation is, and how it is reflected at various levels-- for example, as physical tension, energetic blockages, firm mental concepts, etc. Even our eyes are used to either looking at specific objects or scanning for objects rather than resting in a relaxed, open gaze. Which is why in many Buddhist traditions, simply keeping the eyes open, relaxed and not focused on anything is often a first step. There is probably an important intermediate level between 1 and 2--- being undistracted or collected. It is one thing to be completely caught up and swept away mindlessly, and another to have some initial presence even while still being caught up identifying as various objects.

You mean you couldn't undo eons of conditioning in a few conversations? As a neophyte myself, I am always sensitive to the plights of the neophyte. I think Vivekananda describes the mind well as a monkey --- that has gotten drunk--- oh and stung by a scorpion--- and then possessed by a demon. And this was before computers and "smart" phones. It is interesting that Western psychology now has a term for this: cognitive fusion.

Well, there is the notion that perhaps these things should not be discussed without some preliminary meditation or other work. On the one hand, the sages have often given the most direct teachings first, so that those with the requisite karma (or grace, or the proper causes and conditions, however we wish to put it) could "get it" immediately. On the other hand, nonduality is often either inscrutable or easily intellectualized, such that it ether makes no sense, or people think they have sufficiently gotten it when there is still work to do. In this case, it may be useless, or even a great disservice. Accordingly, in many traditions, such things are withheld until there is sufficient preparation. I am always a bit curious about the "evangelical nonduality" I often see online, wherein people attempt to actively convert others, even those who are disinterested or resistant to the notion.

This is actually the Swami S video to start with IME where he goes into this:

I thought this was an outstanding talk that combines the insights of Vedanta with the Christianity. We have a Christian who converted to Vedanta, and rather than losing his Christianity found it very much enhanced. It is also very practical, very loving, and spoken well from the heart. He also raises interesting questions about dual-belonging: can one be a member of two religions? His answer may surprise you (especially since it come in the second lecture ).

Well, we can also consider from the opposite direction. What is Brahman? Well, Brahman is unlimited being--- unlimited in time, space, and all objects depend on Brahman. So Brahman is omnipresent--- even here and now. In fact, Brahman is who we really are. Despite this universality of Brahman, are we really to believe the only people who know about this universal and foundational truth, not only of every human experience but also of the entire cosmos, is a handful of Advaitins? That every Christian, Buddhist, Daoist, --- and not just the ones alive today, but everyone who was ever born and died--- out of the untold millions and millions of practitioners over many millennia--- many of whom are intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and/or meditative geniuses--- well, they all got it obviously wrong? Every Single One? And that I, somehow despite my failings in every way, and my limitation to a narrow time, space, and culture--- that I am in fact more discerning then all of of them combined? Well, that truly boggles the mind.

I think by "traditional" you mean "common" or "popular." Just as the sky is more apparent at the peak rather the base of the mountain, so too is it with spiritual traditions. Check out this passage from Nicholas of Cusa from the Vision of God: "And since Your love Is always with me and is nothing other, Lord, than You Yourself, who love me, You Yourself are always with me, 0 Lord. You do not desert me, Lord; You safe-guard me on all sides because You most carefully watch over me. Your Being, 0 Lord, does not forsake my being, for I exist insofar as You are with me. And since Your seeing is Your being, I exist because You look upon me. And if You were to withdraw Your countenance from me, I would not at all continue to exist. But I know that Your gaze is that maximal goodness which cannot fail to impart itself to whatever is capable of receiving it. Therefore, You can never forsake me, as long as I am capable of receiving You. Hence, I must see to it that, as best I can, I be made more and more capable of receiving You. But I know that the capability which conduces to union is only likeness; but incapability results from unlikeness. Therefore, if by every possible means I make myself like unto Your goodness, then according to my degree of likeness thereto I will be capable of receiving truth. 0 Lord, You have given me being; and my being is such that it can make itself more and more capable of receiving Your grace and goodness." And the idea that the way to God is through Christ is really not different from saying that the way to Brahman is through wisdom. There are many traditional Christian mystics and traditions that in fact put forth that Christ is wisdom, or gnosis, which performs the same function as the Sanskrit jna-, as in jnana or prajna. Surely there is no less a tolerant form of spirituality than universalism in Christianity, based on such Biblical passages as: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18–19, ESV) “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV) “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:32, ESV)

I agree with Michael. The truth is the truth, it is reflected through different cultural lenses. No doubt some people reflect the truth more clearly, but it must be based on common ground. How can it be otherwise?

Where do you live? Tibet? Finding people even interested in nondualism seems fairly rare IME.

The idea of reverse influence, from Tibet to India and China has never really held up in my opinion. But you do see a melting pot of Shavite and Buddhist Tantra in India, sharing practices and even plagiarizing scriptures, and such influences clearly show up in Vedanta as well. India is to the East what Greece was to the West in my opinion (and may have even influenced Greece). But let's not let such academic opinions clutter up the 'Bums.

Well, there's another duality for you to be melted and unbounded--- the duality of emptiness and compassion. Realizing the underlying similarity of all sentient beings causes a natural compassion for them to arise, and this can drive action.

If so, I would find it more convincing if some one who practiced his program X or whatever could demonstrate what they learned. Presuming Mizner is legit (and I have no reason to think otherwise at this point, despite his marketing), if whatever he is showing is possible only after many years of full time practice, then it seems that engaging in seminars and online programs would be a waste of time/money. That's how it seems to me with most of these martial applications--- a form of soft body physics.

Not sure it is even an argument--- the terms still have not been properly defined or agreed upon.