Seeker of Wisdom

I think it's disrespectful to both Buddhism and Vedanta to try to merge them together as though they secretly say the same thing... they are distinct, overlapping paths designed for different seekers, and deserve to be compared equally, acknowledging similarities and differences. Yes, it is foolish to say literally 'I do not exist'. As Alan Wallace said, the question isn't 'do I exist?' but 'in what manner do I exist?'. Well, that's not the Buddhist POV. If this said 'from the perspective of Vedanta...', that would be true, but this is presenting Vedanta and claiming that it is Buddhism. In Buddhism there is no Brahman, no Self. The emptiness teachings are quite clear about that, particularly on how the 6 sense consciousnesses depend on contact. I can see how misunderstanding the tathagatagarbha stuff could lead to thinking Buddhism says that though (this is a topic I'll eventually cover in the 'Lessons in Buddhism' thread in my PPF). Anatta means that there is no self, as in no central core of identity. There are just the aggregates - form, feeling, cognition, volition, consciousness - none of which, nor any combination of which, are 'I', 'me', or 'mine'. But this doesn't deny the existence of the person, on the basis of which the word 'I' can be used meaningfully. It is just that the person is simply a bundle of processes, no more 'self' than a river. A river has no self - but it still exists. The only difference with people is that people have mental components, as well as physical. So: "Anatta (anatman - literally "no atman") points to the truth that there is no individual self (atman) and that there is only universal Self (Brahman - aka Consciousness) and that there are only dependently originated processes."

Meditate on impermanence and mortality. The more you observe the constant ebb and flow of things (objects, feelings, thoughts, desires, etc), the constant change, the more your mind will see there is no point trying to hold on to everything.

I think you can use methods to actively increase your compassion, and it's also a side effect of your other cultivation, but compassion isn't complete without wisdom and vice versa. I hope these posts are helpful: the four immeasurables and three more methods.

I'm doing module 1 of the Quareia course, and I'd appreciate some explanation from you guys about what seems to be a fundamental aspect of magic - imagination. So far the lessons involve a fair amount of visualising/imagining stuff, which is fun. Today I was doing the lesson 5 boundary exercise (http://www.quareia.com/s/QUAREIA_M1_L5.pdf) projecting greetings to a tree and having my own thoughts 'respond' stuff like "hello! Nice you're making contact now." I mean... was that just my own mind making up the other side of a conversation, or some form of contact with an entity living in a tree, or what? I walked back indoors saying to myself 'I just spoke to a bloody tree.' I think either: 1) 'this is real already and I should trust it more' or 2) 'it's imagination at first, but gradually, using the imagination like this opens up genuine perception' or 3) 'you're going nuts, mate, just because something pops into your mind doesn't mean it's real'. Right now I'm not sure between 2 and 3. It would feel different if I experienced something that I could objectively verify, like the tree 'saying' "help, I'm on fire!" and then seeing that it was. I suspect those of you experienced in magic are going to say I have mistaken ideas about what imagination really is in the first place, or something like that. So what role does imagination have in magic?

The capacity for it still has to be developed, then. No point knocking the car that gets you to the ferry because it can't take you across the water itself. The car still has a vital place in the overall journey.

The 'visionary magic basics' lesson in the quareia course teaches visualising yourself stepping out of your body and walking around. Apparently that lays a foundation for interacting with other realms/beings and stuff like remote viewing. The lesson 1 basic meditations involve visualising breathing in white smoke and exhaling grey smoke, visualising the left, central and right channels, and visualising fire in your centre. The lesson 4 ritual involves visualising various gates and columns of fire and such. All good fun.

That's nothing. When I first got into cultivation, having joined a fairly new-agey forum, there was a guy on there who said that, as there are infinite universes, fiction in our world really exists in another universe... and he'd been a pokemon trainer in a previous life. He said he'd be really upset if anyone was critical, because he seriously loved pokemon and it got him through rough times.

^^^ good idea, thanks.

The problem is that you're defining anything that isn't physical as 'supernatural', thus eliminating any possibility in your mind of something existing that is not physical. Of course everything is natural. But consciousness, which is not material (although there are neurological correlates), is just as natural as rocks are. Your circular reasoning: everything is physical -> science can explain everything -> therefore everything is physical. You are making an assumption that everything is physical in such a way that it is unfalsifiable, because you state that everything has either been explained or will be explained in purely material terms, rather than looking at the evidence or lack thereof that currently exists. Do you see the issue in your logic? If something were nonphysical in nature, your logic would insist on saying 'it will be figured out in physical terms eventually' despite this being impossible, rather than saying 'this is natural but not physical, time for a paradigm shift'. If consciousness is physical, an emergent property of neurology, how can you explain the effects of observer-participancy (as well documented from stuff like the double-slit experiment)? This challenges the closure principle, and therefore provides replicated experimental evidence against materialism. Any materialistic theory of consciousness would need to explain why a human brain and eyes looking at measuring equipment affects quantum systems in a way nothing else does... which I won't be holding my breath for, as so far most scientists will cough and awkwardly look at their shoes rather than think about it seriously.

I don't believe in either view of God. I think everything comes to be from cause and effect, and there isn't an absolute person or consciousness or energy that started it all off, or transcends cause and effect, or is one with everything. For me 'Tao' is the nature of things, a verb rather than a noun, not a special thing that is one with everything or that everything comes from. I am not a theist or pantheist, and I'm not an atheist either because I don't believe in materialism. Many people tend to think that there's either some sort of God, or only the physical, and it doesn't occur to them that there could be spiritual things without any sort of God: a nontheistic spirituality.

Early days, I'm on module 1, which is core skills so no really odd phenomena yet... it's improving my visualisation and intuition though. I've got a journal going in my PPF with my experiences. Hard to say if it ties in with qigong because I'm not that far into it yet and haven't practised qigong, but the basic meditation practices of lesson 1 involve some focus on the third eye and the left, central and right channels which might tie in to qigong. Also lesson 4 says you should do a little daily something like yoga for your body, so you could definitely combine with qigong. I can understand the freaked-out thing, though I don't think the course will have evoking demons and so on for quite a while. Couple days ago I did the lesson 4 ritual during a thunderstorm, felt like some badass wizard lol.

I'm currently doing some Quareia , if you want to learn/try some magic you might find it useful.

Nice, let's carry on here

In which case I misinterpreted your earlier post a bit. You're probably right. Actually I've been doing some of Josephine McCarthy's Quareia stuff recently.

I would say it depends on the nature of the meditation being done. Methods such as shamatha can only effectively be done while sat focusing exclusively on that, so the 24/7 idea simply doesn't apply to those techniques. Things like metta can be practiced 24/7, and if done properly - focused towards yourself as well as others - that shouldn't be risky, because genuine metta can probably itself be a form of shield. However, there may be fluffy types who practice metta in a 'everybody's welcome!' way and get nasty visitors. 24/7 vipashyana should also be safe, as, rather than involving opening up to anything, it's about recognising the impermanence, dukkha and anatta nature of what's there anyway. Including mindfulness of the body, which is very grounding. Since I focus on Buddhist methods, for me 'spiritual' and 'mundane' are not different things, but simply whether reality is seen with delusion or not. From this perspective it is not only safe, but necessary, to merge spirituality and the rest of life. 24/7 energy work and magical practices could be more of an issue. Since you focus on a magical path, it's right for you to keep 'spiritual' and 'mundane' separate, because it's obviously unhealthy to try to live in the material realm and higher realms simultaneously.

See a doctor. Get well soon.

I would say the mind is a network of psychological processes (feelings, cognition, volition, consciousness), and it has no location. The neural correlates of mental events are located in the brain, but to say that thoughts, emotions etc themselves have a location (aside from 'in' the mind), or especially size, colour, shape, or mass, doesn't seem supported by my experience.

He said "For all you jackass easterners who think that westerners have no hope of achieving any significant achievement in Buddhism...". I.e there are some Easterners who disparage Westerners, and he is referring to them. Anyway, welcome to TTB!

The guy you want to talk to is Protector.

I think his next book is going to be a commentary and translation of the vipashyana section of the Vajra Essence. He's not stopped writing about Buddhism, but he's interested in other things like science, and relating them to Buddhism. ¿Que?

Alan is a really great example of pure nonsectarianism too. He personally favours Dzogchen, yet he's studied and practiced other traditions such as Therevada and Iyengar Yoga, and strongly emphasises the importance of shamatha. Here's a discussion between him and Bikkhu Bodhi about what happens to arhats after death and rigpa.

Oh, man... genius.

The part of the quote you underlined is an accurate description of what anyone who watches their thoughts a lot finds. It's a pretty universally reported thing, and TI's advice to work through the crap (we all have some - me, you, TI, everyone) for a few years before worrying about tekchö is good IMHO.

The only thing I'm aware of that fixes the underlying structural issue with the tendons is insoles. Get ones specifically for flat feet from a shoe shop, or see a podiatrist. I had flat feet when I was a kid, it took a few years for my flat feet to be set into proper arches. Might take longer for you, starting with adult feet. Insoles feel weird at first, then you forget they're there.

Wasn't there a time when he was of lower calibre than we are now?