forestofemptiness

From Swami Dayananda: Silence in Spite of Thoughts

I always see the focus in these quotes on quantity instead of quality. Makes me wonder.

Here's an article to excite the believers and to be dismissed by skeptics: Backward Memory Study The paper

These experiments were designed to be simple and easily reproducible exactly because of this.

Humanity is dependently originated with the Universe. The Earth is dependently originated with the Universe. The Universe is dependently originated with earth and humanity. Sorry, but I took issue with the phrasing!

I voted yes, but religion would have to change. I don't think science is compatible with literal religion, but it is very consistent with more mystical parts of religion. I mean, there is no way science is going to get along with people who say that the world was created in sex literal days, or that infidels should be put to death.

While I may agree with some of the statements, you seem to be confusing the path with the goal. One doesn't go from many fixations to no fixations overnight. Many Buddhist practices have evolved based on wholesome fixations, such as fixations on dharma practice. When one is fixed on the whole world, then becomes fixed on a part of it, there is a great deal of liberation. This is just like if you went from drinking a six pack a day to one beer a day--- you're making progress. To paraphrase Chinul, just because the sun is out doesn't mean all the snow is melted. If I wanted to play games, I could say that the attitude that fixed attitudes are an obscuration is itself a fixed attitude and an obscuration.

Emptiness and dependent origination are not things, so how can they be constant? In fact, dependent origination and emptiness are really just concepts that we add onto our experience. The trouble is when we divorce them from their context and take them to be things in themselves. I think it is wrong to try to apply concepts such as self or no-self to the Tao. The Tao is both included in the world of concepts, but also beyond it. Applying these concepts to the Tao strikes me as trying to capture the ocean in a bowl.

All snarkiness aside, this is perhaps one of the clearest explanations I have seen of the Tao. Nor do I think that it is inconsistent with Buddhist teaching. I think it is a good point to ask, "Why doesn't the universe manifest randomly?" I keep imploring members here to not to allow Vajrahridaya to elect himself as the Buddhist pope, no matter how many posts he make. His view, like my view, is simply ONE view.

I have attached a mysterious photo of myself meditating at dawn. Notice the auric light coming from my head. This can only come through high level practice.

Who is Sri TNS? Just curious about his background.

For all the talk of kundalini, I've really only ran into one person who talked about it negatively: G.I. Gurdjieff. He said that kundalini is the power of imagination, and that by arousing it one could prematurely "freeze" one's spiritual development. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I don't agree with GIH on wisdom vs. energy. Wisdom practices have a direct impact on your energy state. I was at a retreat once where I was concentrating intensely on a sort of koan to the point where my body was hot and sweating. Then something happened in my legs, and I haven't had leg pain while sitting since. Before, I used to always get leg pain. In fact, my legs have been remarkably better since. So something happened. You might say in Taoist terms that I opened meridians in my legs, yet I was practicing Buddhist practice. I also had spontaneous movements and yoga postures at that retreat while practicing insight meditation.

Sit ups, push ups, running, squats, leg lifts, bicycle kicks, and their many variations: spider man push ups, diamond push ups, camp fires, etc. All classic PT stuff. And also Intu-flow.

I'm going to say it: I've experienced more health benefits from old fashioned Western exercise than qi gong. Not only that, but seeing people grow old who exercise regularly, they appear to be quite healthy physically --- much more so than the average qi gong person. The best way I've found to be in good shape for running, sit ups, and push ups (and if you're thinking Navy, swimming) is running, sit ups, and push ups, and other body weight exercises for diversity.

I agree with this. I often feel that my practice is guided by something higher. However, in order to tune into that guidance, two things are necessary: 1. An open, questioning mind. 2. Unrelenting inner honesty.

I think it is strange to say something like "true Buddhist", because it implies that there is a self, that it is a Buddhist self, and that it comes in true and false variations. There is no peg upon which to hang "true Buddhist" on. There is no one size fits all. I used to share a similar viewpoint, but like all viewpoints, I found it is limited. Different people have different knots in different places.

I think this brain v. mind distinction is important and wanted to start a thread off of it. To respond, one might say: 1. In the dream, you don't necessarily dream that you have a brain. Also, dreams, unlike waking life, are inconstant, change at a higher rate, and fade away. I've woken up from a dream into waking life many times, but I've never woken up from waking life into a dream. 2. This second proof sounds like Anselm's proof of the existence of God, and I think is more due to quick wordplay than anything. I would like to see this one broken out into simple pieces.

I recently discovered this article by philosopher David Loy that beautifully describes how Advaita and Buddhism lead to the same path. I know the difference and inferiority of the one over the other is a topic of much debate here, so I present for all how multiple paths are actually ONE path: Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita

Gold and All, When I dream, sometimes I have a body and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'm just a disembodied witness. Sometimes I have hands, and sometimes they melt away when I look at them. There is nothing consistent in my dreams. I don't think, for example, I dream of an entire world with a functioning economy: rather, I just dream the corner I'm in. In fact, when I leave the "limits" of my dream, I don't discover more dream, I tend to wake up. The God comment was more in line with the logic of Anselm than the substance. The main criticism I have against the brain = mind is that it is unclear how insentient matter can give rise to sentience. Clearly, there is some link, and there is a link between the eye and seeing.

Click on the British symbol, go to articles, and go to I is a Door Part II. The whole series is great, but the Nisargadatta one explains the difference in the term translated as "consciousness."