forestofemptiness

Interesting interview. I would say that his understanding of rigpa is quite off, but the Theravada theory based stuff was interesting. It is interesting because he is practicing Sutta jhanas, or so-called "jhana lite." If true (which it may be--- his willingness to be tested scientifically is something), I would wonder if it is based on his own capacity.

I would say more like pixels of different shapes. Sometimes round, sometimes sharp.

Is this different from say, the Ganzfeld effect or phosphenes? I've never done psychedelics, but I often see geometric patterns at night and all sorts of strangeness looking at something for a time (often done in meditation). https://scienceline.org/2014/12/why-do-we-see-colors-with-our-eyes-closed/

Doesn't the Gita eventually say that the most advanced path, though, is bhakti?

I get that. Samsaric dreams vs dreams of clarity. Dreams of clarity tend to be hyperreal, meaningful, etc. I've had predictive dreams as well, but the predictions are always fairly minor (although dead on). Personally, my narrative is that there is no astral body. There is consciousness, and consciousness is unlimited. It is a DITY project. No way would anyone with discernment accept any of the evidence out there. It is too easy to fake, and even properly controlled, there may be unknown physical elements at play. The culture is definitely ridiculous. I found one person who sounded earnest, so I decided to try it for fun. I was surprised. I would certainly love to hear a good physical explanation. It is definitely problematic, but the claimed effect is so weak that it is claimed that one needs a low friction source to demonstrate it. Most videos use exposed objects, which move due to ambient air or hand convection. Even if it is under glass with no contact, there may be off camera subtle physical vibrations or heat sources (such as direct sunlight) that can move it. At least one enterprising person drilled a hole through a table and had some one breathing in it off camera. You can also buy magic-shop machines that perform the effect. However, under the right conditions controlling for much of this, the damn thing doesn't move.

I am almost don't want to admit this, but in researching OBEs, I did come across experiments in weak forms of so-called telekinesis. The culture around it is wacky to the point of absurdity, and the people who do it are incredibly ignorant of both basic physics (especially convection and air), the mechanics of magic tricks, and the magic of video editing. However, I have found that one can produce the appearance of the effect that defies most common explanations. Of course, it is one of those things that you'd never believe if you didn't do it yourself. Swami Rama evidently demonstrated such an effect in the same lab he demonstrated control over his heart.

A natural, that's what I figured. It is interesting to see how people seem to have certain "talents" --- lots of stories can be told about that. I've never had a talent for things like this. I agree that the presentation of dreaming is the closest as to how I experience the dream and waking state. What do you think distinguishes an OBE from a hyper lucid dream?

That's pretty cool. Nothing like my teenage Robitussin experience.

I would estimate that at least half (if not more) of the stories people post are made up, and another large chunk are probably sincere but deluded. I also don't think most people who AP are familiar enough with lucid dreams to distinguish the two (if they can be distinguished), or to distinguish the "false awakening." I have not heard of any danger, except from people who watched TV shows or movies. Lucid dreaming can be very educational. Andrew Holocek combines the best of Tibetan and Western. He is actually going over his book Dream Yoga on his site now.

Did you do it at the Institute? Did it work? Looks like the early version is on Youtube after a FOIA to the CIA (which used it for their program):

Did you use any methods or techniques that you found effective? Any specific methods or techniques, or is it more spontaneous?

I think books have a certain function, and for some people at certain times, they can be quite helpful. Obviously many advanced people have written books. The fundamental issue with a book is that it is always generic. The same words for every person, every time. A book doesn't personalize the teaching to fit you. A book doesn't answer questions. A book cannot clarify points. A book cannot tell you whether you misinterpreted it. You cannot check your understanding against a book. And finally, there is no non-verbal communication with a book, personal connection, or "warm hand" to take a hold of. I have found over the past years that for many people (and I include myself here) are just looking to exchange one set of stories for another. As I said, it appears to me that all concepts have a distorting effect.

How not to respond to posts, even if I think they are wrong.

They may have a function, but I wonder if at a certain point they block you. It strikes me that many of us read books and simply replace one story with another. Sometimes this is a good thing, as one story may have a closer proximation than another, but it seems to me that any story has a distorting influence on story-less reality. Also, In my experience, "reality" tends to warp around whatever story one has. One of my teachers has deeply challenged me to go beyond my stories, especially my precious Buddhist ones. In so doing, I am finding a great deal of pressure from other Buddhists to NOT DO THAT. Of course, I trust my teacher, but I am a bit surprised. Of course, what 'there' means is widely variant. For some, 'there' means feeling relatively stress and anxiety free, but for others it means your body becomes incorruptible at death or dissolves into light.

Reverence opens the mind and softens the heart, which is good for getting a taste of emptiness and compassion.

Sometimes I wonder if books are just golden prisons for the mind.

I am very visual when it comes to thinking. For me, visuals are primordial. When I was a kid, I thought in pictures, but over time I became more verbal and I started churning up a lot of inner dialogue. After meditating for a long time, it started to reverse. In one of my meditation groups, it turns out some people have a lot of inner visuals, some inner sounds, and some inner feelings (which correlated roughly with body, speech, and mind). When it comes to energy/qi, no doubt it is all feeling for me. How do you all think?

He also makes a lot of amateur errors and conclusions given his lack of formal language training. A lot of his assertions have been debunked by scholars with familiarity with the language. I think he is trying to smuggle Platonism into Buddhism, which is fine if you want to do it, but then you miss out on the depth of the emptiness teachings. Just my opinion.

I think most traditions have some mix. From a Buddhist POV, I would use "effort" and "effortless" methods. However, the former is usually a method to develop the latter. Interestingly, I have heard that certain Tantric forms also develop a body that is to survive death. However, such practices seem to be aimed at full time practitioners. I wonder if internal alchemy is similar. It appears quite different from the Mahamudra/Dzogchen styles of practice. I have the same impression FWIW, but I wouldn't go to him for anything other than neigong.

WHAAAAT?!?!?! He was quite insistent back in the day...

IIRC Bodri is against trying to "run" energy through the MCO, not the MCO itself.

I'm not convinced that there is a single, universal "map" of spiritual awakening. Even within Buddhism, terms such as realization differs from tradition to tradition. And within each tradition there are variants. For example, per the Pali Canon, "entering the stream" usually means breaking the first three fetters: belief in a self, doubt in the Buddhist teaching, and attachment to rites/rituals. Not only that, but there are certain markers that are supposed to arise when this happens. In some cases, realization refers to realizing the three marks of existence: impermanence (anicca,) selflessness (anatta), and dissatisfaction (dukkha). At least the way one set of teachers taught it, the initial blooming of this realization IS stream entry. From a Zen perspective, the beginning of the path is when one glimpses the nature of mind, which then becomes the basis for further practice. In fact, Zen masters may talk of permanence, true self, and bliss as a way of teaching. The issue is that there are different paths for different people. However, the tendency to reify a particular path as THE PATH and use it to judge all others is a bit problematic.

As this is a Damo thread, I thought I would go with what he says. In his Comprehensive Guide he says: "There is much disagreement within Daoism over the meaning of the term Xian... or "immortal." Some say it is a metaphor for reaching a high level of spiritual attainment, but personally I understand it in its most literal sense." He also states that the spiritual embryo "is one of the final attainments of alchemical practice whereby your own consciousness has been nurtured to the point of being able to exist independently of the physical anchor of the body. This becomes the basis for spiritual immortality..." I've heard similar notions from other Daoist teachers.

That's weird. Most experienced teachers are aware of these things. Of course, different people experience different things. I have yet to meet a tradition that didn't have a superiority complex. I remember when I went to my first retreat, they told me they were teaching the "original teaching of the Buddha." Just the first of many "original teachings of the Buddha." Maybe a subject for another thread, but I'm not sure that Daoism and Buddhism are even going in the same direction. To make a gross comparison, for Daoism immortality is said to be the goal, whereas in Buddhism it is the problem.

It is not possible to receive the proper empowerment anymore.