forestofemptiness

I actually went through Shankara's (translated) writings to see how much he attacked Buddhism. turns out, it wasn't much. I don't think Buddhism at the time in India (if it even existed) was much of a force. Rather, the focus of his critiques were directed at Mimamsa schools. And the critiques against Buddhism were based primarily on Abhidharma concepts (especially momentariness) as opposed to the Mahayana and Tantric ideas espoused by Stirling. And if you choose to stick to Shankara, you might want to check out Swami Satchidanandendra on the topic because stripping Vedanta back to Shankara eliminates about 1,000 years of Vedanta. Per Swami, even typical notions like the Self or Atman are not actually positive descriptions, but rather part of the larger method of adhyasa -apavada method of proposing and negating. I was listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda describe that in Vedanta, in addition to mantra, there has traditionally been deity visualization and practice. This would align the core practices of Vedanta, Tantra, and Tantric Buddhism in that specific regard. And of course, in none of these systems is that the highest practice. It seems very clear that all of these systems share roots. I have had at least one teacher traditionally trained in both Zen and Vedanta who thought there was no conflict. But scholars vary along the lines of comparison, which can be read about here: Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist? (gsu.edu)

Even on subtle and causal layers, I presume there needs to be some discrimination. But usually (as in your example as well) the test for the "truth" or objectivity or intersubjectivity or whatever usually falls on the physical dimension (although it need not, for example with awareness teachings). For example, with energy work, the most convincing display is not the inner feeling but the outer manifestations. Between two data points, there are many connecting stories that can be told. I've never really been comfortable with drawing conclusions, only letting the experience stand for itself, but it is interesting to see which connections people like to draw. Another example is the Daoist Dan tians, the various chakras systems, Tibetan Buddhism, etc. Many people presume one or more of these are "true," but it seems to me whatever one you cultivate will be the true one manifesting physical and psychological effects. Not because that is how the body is set up, but more due to the malleability of the world. And yet malleability only goes so far, as I doubt you can just invent a made-up system and have it work. A paradox. One interesting thing is the distinction between veridical and non-veridical out of body experiences. Near death, there are strong reports of people observing things their body could not detect. Typical non-near death OBE procedures, however, usually fail to uncover actual data, such as the ability to correctly read an obscured card. Personally, I don't think in any case is anyone leaving their body, because the body is not the container. Rather, it would seem closer to describe these as shifts in consciousness.

Well, certainly, but it is important to distinguish between essence and function. One cannot purchase an illusory waking state home with illusory money from a dream, for instance. There are still valid and invalid relative cognitions. The wisdom of equality is not necessarily the same as the wisdom of discrimination. It is interesting because the teachers I've had have been fairly split on the issue. Most of my Buddhist teachers have said that most visions, etc. are purely dreamlike illusions (to a point) merely to be discarded. Non-Buddhist teachers, often have an opposite view, especially those involved in energy or magical work. So in this example, how would one distinguish between a vision of a friend who died vs the friend who died is actually visiting?

Not to get fussy, but since HHDL was invoked, this is pretty much the Chittamatra view that is fairly widely condemned as falling short of a deep understanding of emptiness.

I am curious as to how people determine that what is see in visions, or visionary beings, are not purely subjective.

I would say that these other practices may have other ends--- sometimes worldly (samsaric goals), sometimes heavenly (higher samsaric goals), sometimes preparatory.

Around 51:40 he segues into it.

His take on the Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, outlining the Kagyu Shentong position, is pretty interesting.

One thing I've never really come to terms with the whole "God" concept. From a first person point of view, we experience a certain flow of lights and sounds that we can assemble into a theistic or non-theistic narrative. It is interesting that Swami places ontology at the level of relative truth. Personally, I don't think one really experiences "God" as much as one has experiences that one can pattern into a narrative about God (Vedanta) or not (Buddhism). However, the non-theistic narrative always seems a bit lacking. It is a far different thing even on the relative level to say "this is all an expression of the mind" versus "this is all an expression of God."

There goes my weekend plans...

HHDL from the Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra:

It is a pretty common theme, not only in the Bible, but in commentaries. Some (21) Bible verses: https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-light/

No spiritual non-lucid dreams?

Yes. Not all vivid dreams are lucid, and not all lucid dreams are vivid. But when a dream is lucid AND vidid, that is something.

I seem to recall from my Western esoteric days that this is pretty much how they put it. I've been too engrained in Buddhism that the Christian-type Western concepts seem weird to me. For instance, I think the Tantric polarity makes more sense since you can map it directly onto experience. What I find interesting about these conceptual maps is that they form a type of bridge from the conceptual mind to the nonconceptual reality. One can either cross the bridge to the nonconceptual (rare), or attempt to bring the nonconceptual down into the conceptual realm (common) thereby solidifying (crucifying?) and killing it. I suppose from a more Theosophic POV, the first is evolution and the second involution.

I would say so.

You can get a similar effect by closing the eyes tightly, and sometimes pressing gently on them them.

Taiji Bum?

You're generous. I just presume that 99.99% of what's posted online is made up, delusional, a product of mental illness, or some combination.

This insight may arise after a brief or long cessation. The length of the cessation accordingly irrelevant. I would also suggest that cessations of various lengths may be invoked without any jhana or samadhi at all, although perhaps not as consistently. There is also a correlate using the dream and sleep state for similar insight. I guess the point I was trying to make earlier is that Theravada and Samkhya tend to follow a nirvikalpa samadhi model, although how they use the model is different. In fact, I really see no difference between the complete cessation of "nirvana" and nirvikalpa samadhi. Even the prefix is similar. However, the nirvikalpa model seems to be limited to full time monastics and renunciates given the limitations of the model (i.e. it has to be cultivated on long term retreats, with lots of hours spend in sitting). Mahayana and Advaita on the other hand may use these methods, but appear to me to be more modeled on savikalpa samadhi models.

Just riffing on some thoughts. I've heard two uses to the jhana state: 1) you attain jhana and then apply vipassana to it (sutta jhana approach); and 2) you cannot analyze in jhana, so the vipassana takes place upon exit (hard jhana approach). The second one I've come across in both some Theravada and also Zen schools. Interestingly, in Hindu schools, one might use samadhi states to strip away the kosas in real time, leaving only the atman. So remaining in samadhi for periods of time make sense. According to some commentators, the Samkhya goal is to remain in nirvikalpa samadhi at the point of death. However, for the Buddhist approach, it doesn't. What's the point of staying in a jhana state for a several days if the insight is to be had on entry or exit? It sounds like the Buddhists essentially repurposed Samkhya teachings. It is also interesting that Mahayana schools went on the develop methods to invoke shifts in consciousness without intense jhana, allowing one to take advantage of the insight provided by state shifts without having to achieve high levels of samadhi.

I thought this might be an exaggeration, but I looked at Delson's book and it does seem that the descriptions of jhana are fairly watered down, even for Sutta jhanas.

I tried them some years ago and found them compelling, but I didn't continue. I picked them up again to try them for a couple for months to see. They are simple and effective.

Ugh. https://medium.com/know-thyself-heal-thyself/what-i-learned-from-being-kicked-out-of-a-twim-meditation-retreat-9c9133542e5f

TWR's 5 Tsa Lungs?