Seeker of Wisdom

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    1,202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Seeker of Wisdom

  1. Ego and enlightenment

  2. Before meditation practices

    Sometimes I'll briefly counteract each of the five hindrances: craving by contemplating contentment, malice by metta, restlessness by relaxing (developing the attitude of taking a break from noise), torpor by trataka (focusing hard on a spot on the wall or something to rouse energy), and doubt by taking refuge in the Three Jewels and contemplating the achievability of what I'm doing. Two minutes at each stage is a nice way to get in a balanced, inspired frame of mind in only ten minutes. Normally, though, I just start meditating straight off. IMO it's a key thing that the mind we cultivate with is also the mind we do everything else with. Spend the whole day feeding it junk, and you can't expect it to be serene and limber the moment you're cross-legged. One thing that really helps is finding a practice you can keep running all the time, outside formal sessions. Ideally, from the moment you wake up to the moment you fall asleep. That sort of momentum gets results. It might be the same as what you do on the cushion - in which case, that should be some great momentum if you can keep at it. The other thing that helps is virtue - thoughts, words and actions supporting rather than undermining what you're trying to do on the cushion. Not in some moralistic 'oh how shameful' sense, more in a 'getting irritable doesn't feel skilful, let's work on patience a bit', or whatever. Hope that helps.
  3. Atman, true self, in Buddha last sutra ,

    If by 'sutric' you mean 'not tantric', IMO there's variation on that. My practice is largely Mahasi-style noting from Theravada, and the general attitude from what I've read seems to be 'shut up, sit/walk, note it, see how it is'. Becoming reasonably convinced through logic that there can't be a self can be an extremely important step - at least, it was for me - because it makes it so much easier to go about the practice without constant doubt and clinging to assumptions 'this MUST be me/mine'. Stuff like Chandrakirti's chariot analysis, reasoning through each of the skhandas not being self, or in self, or containing self, or being self collectively, is definitely worth doing. It clears leaves off the line. Learning that it isn't about whether or not there is a self, but whether or not one can be found, and the entrapment of clinging to views, is another leap in understanding. That's where practice takes off, and the practice itself is really the liberating thing, of course. I challenge anyone to give noting a good try and still be convinced that there is a self.
  4. Atman, true self, in Buddha last sutra ,

    Mahaparinirvana sutra: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self." ^^^ Avoiding one extreme. Maha-nidana sutta: "To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.' [in each case 'a fixed view of a self obsesses him'] ^^^ Avoiding another extreme. My conclusion - Buddhism isn't interested in metaphysical thought about self vs. non-self. What it's interested in is the effect of these views. The act of reading a self onto phenomena is problematic grasping. The act of obsessing over the opposite theory is problematic grasping. The solution is to see phenomena just as they are - not 'me' or 'mine'. This strategy is what anatta is really pointing to - 'in the seen just the seen', and all that. As Thanissaro says in 'Wings to Awakening': "According to the texts, the most insidious issues that can excite uncertainty are questions that center on the concept of "I": "Do I exist?" "Do I not exist?" In the cosmological or metaphysical mode, this concept leads to such questions as: "Does the self exist?" "Does it not exist?" In the psychological or personal narrative mode, it leads to a sense of self-identity, attachment to the object with which one identifies, and all the suffering that inherently results. In either mode, this concept leads to uncertainty about the past and future: "Did I exist in the past?" "Will I exist in the future?" "What will I be?" All of these questions obviously pull the mind out of the phenomenological mode; passage §51 shows that the Buddha regarded them as leading to mental effluents and thus unworthy of attention. The one time he was asked point-blank as to whether or not there is a self [sN 44.10; MFU, pp. 85-86], he refused to answer, thus showing that the question deserves to be put aside. What then of the well-known Buddhist teachings on not-self? [...] we're apparently safe in assuming that if we try to draw inferences from his statements to give either a categorical answer (No, there is no self; or Yes, there is) or an analytical answer (It depends on how you define "self") to a question that the Buddha showed by example should not be asked or answered, we are drawing inferences where they should not be drawn. A more fruitful line of inquiry is to view experience, not in terms of the existence or non-existence of the self, but in terms of the categories of the four noble truths, which §51 identifies as the truly proper subject of appropriate attention. If we look at the way the Buddha phrases questions about not-self [sN 22.59, MFU, pp. 79-80] in the context of the duties appropriate to the four noble truths [§195], we see that they function as tools for comprehending stress and abandoning the craving and clinging that cause it. Thus this line of questioning helps bring about the ending of the mental effluents. Rather than asking, "Do I exist?", one should ask, "Is this mine? Is this me? If these things are regarded as me or mine, will there be suffering?" These questions, when properly answered (No, No, and Yes), can lead directly to the phenomenological mode and on to release from clinging and from suffering and stress. Thus they are worth asking. When applied to the hindrances and factors for Awakening, this line of inquiry can bring the mind to the third stage of frames-of-reference meditation by calling into question the "me" and "my" assumed in the first step of questioning. This undermines any sense of self-identification, first with the hindrances — such as "I'm drowsy" — and then with the factors for Awakening — such as "My mind is serene" [§167]. All that then remains is the radically phenomenological mode that enters fully into the emptiness on the verge of non-fashioning [iI/B], where there are no longer any questions, but simply awareness that "There are mental qualities"... "There is this." This is the threshold to Awakening."
  5. Atman, true self, in Buddha last sutra ,

    IMHO, I don't think interpreting these texts as saying that there actually is a Self fits with Buddhism as a whole. It's fundamental that grasping onto ANY view of self, from 'I am' to 'I am this' to 'I'm not this' to 'I'm not', is unhelpful, a view construed over the pure reality of 'this is'. http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry578123 http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry622578
  6. URGENT! HELP!

    I only do a little energetic stuff myself, but there are other people on here with a fair stock of experience. Detail what you've been doing and I'm sure they can help.
  7. Buddha and the mind

    It's basic dharma theory that there are degrees of awakening. Theravada maps posit four stages. There are various models of Bodhisattva bhumis. Vajrayana systems have varying stages of vidyadhara. Etc. The concept of 'basic awakening' really isn't unusual.
  8. Objective reality

    But the placebo was still objectively a placebo. If you give someone a sugar pill and say it's aspirin, there won't be aspirin in their body. Just because the person believes it's aspirin, and their body responds as though it were, doesn't mean the pill contained aspirin. Someone believing a lie can have a similar or identical effect to if the lie were true - but the lie is still a lie. Whether someone is being truthful or not is objective quite simply because it isn't a matter of opinion. 'Supernatural is a great TV show' - opinion, can't be right or wrong, subjective. 'Jensen Tackles is one of the actors' - objective truth. 'Sylvester Stallone plays Castiel' - objective falsehood.
  9. Buddha and the mind

    Anyhoo, I do agree that energetic work is helpful. A dash of qigong would do a lot of unhealthy monks good.
  10. Buddha and the mind

    Tbh, I don't think this dogma is helpful. Never-reveal-attainmentism obscures the reality of real attainment I.e. the difference between the dogma/hagiography and what happens, encourages people to treat awakening as unattainable, ignores how common implied and outright claims have been (including in the early sangha) and still are worldwide, and makes things easier for scumbags by a) obscuring the reality that awakened people can be imperfect and hence b} encouraging worshipping teachers (increasing potential for abuse) rather than treating them as just people who've practised and got results. This may be a controversial opinion, but honestly, treating awakening as some mysterious thing which nobody can ever actually have helps nobody.
  11. nibbana - cessation - the highest happiness, really?

    The question of what exactly nirvana really is and why anyone would want it is a tricky one. And the Bodhisattva ideal throws a different spin on this too. I doubt many people actually practice with the goal of ending all experience forever. But the path itself is clearly beneficial as far as I'm concerned, so it seems more likely to me that any final end result, if there is one, would seem 'good' to someone who gets there, even if we wouldn't understand why (just as adults love things kids hate), rather than suddenly taking a turn into unimaginable horror. I mean, if you're walking down a street of nice houses you'd be fairly surprised if all of a sudden there was a cenobite house at the end of the row and they dragged you in with a razor-wire net. You can reasonably expect the last house to also be nice. You don't even have to look as far as nirvana to get a 'wtf? Why do that?'. Consider the transition from 3rd to 4th jhana - dropping sukkha for complete equanimity. Apparently, at that stage, utter equanimity, neither pleasure nor pain, is 'better' than profound joy. Strange, huh? According to AN 9.34, this is how arhats think about it:
  12. Objective reality

    Along the same lines, there must be such a thing as objective truths or it wouldn't be possible for people to lie successfully and then confess later from guilt. For example - I stole from you, you ask if it was me, I convince you it wasn't. Let's suppose there are now two parallel universes sprouting from this choice - one where I was truthful about stealing, one where I lied. In the universe sprouting from the lie, I still feel guilty, so I finally confess. Consider - your opinion 'he didn't steal' didn't change the objective truth. We aren't aware of any cases of lies becoming true because of people believing them - but we are aware of lies remaining false. Therefore, whether or not someone is being truthful is an objective truth. And if this is objective, it's feasible for other things to be objective.
  13. Objective reality

    Objective reality is whatever is the case regardless of opinions about it. Whether or not someone is, or even can be, aware of it is a different matter. For example, only I can know what I'm thinking of in the present. However, it's an objective truth that I was thinking of _. If I'm thinking of apples but tell you I'm thinking of pears, your belief I'm thinking of pears doesn't change the fact that I'm thinking of apples.
  14. TDB's interview with Daniel Ingram

    Daniel Ingram, MD, is a key figure in 'hardcore/pragmatic dharma' along with folks like Kenneth Folk and Shinzen Young, advocating a goal-oriented, straightforward technical approach to Buddhist practice which emphasizes vipassana (probing into the Three Characteristics of experience), particularly the Mahasi Sayadaw noting technique, stripped of dogma so pragmatic tech and real results are left. At his forum, The Dharma Overground, there is a controversial cultural norm of being open about attainment, and expecting practitioners to become awakened with good practice. His book, 'Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha' (MCTB) is currently being updated into MCTB2. Bio 1) What teachings/systems/lineages have you been exposed to? A: Many, but it may depend on what you mean by “exposed”. Major ones, in some sort of order: Mahasi, Thai Forest, Sri Lankan Buddhist, Western New-Age/Hyper-psychologized Vipassana, Vedanta, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Zen, Non-aligned Non-Dual, Christian Mystical, Western Magickal (Golden Dawn-based, Thelema, Wicca, Chaos Magick, others), Qabala (spell as you will), Taoism, Shamanistic, Native American, New-Age in general (crystals, auras, spirits, fairies, etc.), Actualism, Scientific Materialist, Classical Greek Philosophy... That’s a pretty good start but incomplete. 2) What practices have you been exposed to? A: Many, but again it depends on what you mean by exposed. My primary meditative practices have been vipassana of various styles, samatha of various styles, Brahamaviharas, Magick, and Dzogchen/Mahamudra-influenced practices. 3) Who have been your Buddhist teachers and are you currently practicing and studying under the guidance of one? A: I have had a lot of teachers of various kinds, including lots of friends who have taught me many useful things, but if you mean formal ones in some sort of traditional or semi-traditional sense, the more important ones were Christopher Titmuss, Sharda Rogell, Fred Von Allmen, Subhana Barzaghi, Yvonne Weier, Norman Feldman, Bill Hamilton, Sayadaw U Rajinda, Bhante Gunaratana, Bhante Rahula, and Sayadaw U Pandita Junior. Really, there were tons of others, with smaller appearances by Christina Feldman, Joseph Goldstein, Chökyi Nyima, and lots of others. Kenneth Folk also was briefly my teacher back in 1996 for about 5 weeks, but that relationship in that way ended then. I am sure I am missing a few. I currently have no teacher in any formal sense, but running an online forum for hardcore practitioners is quite a teacher in its own way, as there are a lot of good and interesting practitioners there. 4) Is there a particular Buddhist tradition that you practice within? A: These days it mostly looks the same to me, but if you need to put it in a labelled box you might call my practice tradition some mix of Theravadan Vipassana and Samatha, with some Mahamudra and Magick thrown in. That is simplifying a great deal but to the point. 5) What is your most recent (last few years) interest in your practice? A: Mostly I just sit when I sit or just recline when I recline, or just drive when I drive, but that is making something seem simple that isn’t, as all sorts of stages and states and things cycle through that are much more interesting than that would make it sound. I also do various brahmaviharas and other formal and less than formal magick. I sometimes do formal samatha practice, sometimes starting with candle-flame kasina. I also sometimes to some free-form energy movement practice. Currently, I am listening to BA Wallace’s Dreaming Yourself Awake and doing more dream practice, as that was how I got into all this stuff in the first place and still a great time and useful. My last retreat was in February and you can read and listen to it here: www.firekasina.org 6) What’s been going on since ‘My experiments in actualism’? A: Lots, as that phase began and ended some years ago. That’s a long time in this business. I enjoyed my time in that phase and would still recommend the basics of what I was focusing on then, in general terms and depending on the practitioner and their goals and abilities. On that relative front, most of what I do is trying to figure out how to balance my life, work, the Dharma Overground, family, rest, music, exercise, service, social responsibility, friendship, health, and the like. It is a complex project but interesting. Practice and results 7) Can you describe the experience of awakening in your system? A: It is not within a system, just is what it is. Everything is where it is, happens on its own, knows itself as part of itself and the field where it is. Those are the major points. That is just how things are, not something in a framework. 8) What are the key features of each of the Four Paths, in terms of: a) The process of attaining each one – any changes in how the insight cycle functions at each one, different emphases in practice needed, etc.? A: That is a huge topic that would probably be better answered for each individual person. Still, were I to say the core of the thing: notice the Three Characteristics of all sensate phenomena without exception all the way through everything: that simple and direct approach will cause the arising of insight and prevent much confusion and complexity. b} What shifts or changes generally result from attaining each Path? A: best to read MCTB for that answer, as it is written down there. The paths are problematic and overly simplistic and naïve as a model, and I much prefer The Simple Model found in MCTB, so, while nearly everyone focuses on the path model, give that one more attention and you will likely do better practice-wise, I believe. 9) Hi Daniel, thank you for taking time out to share your insights with our forum. a) What is your practice schedule like? ie what practices do you do daily and for how long? A: My life is very complex-schedule wise, as I work long and odd hours as an emergency medicine doctor in an understaffed county trauma center. Thus, there is no schedule for almost anything but work, and I fit in everything else when I can as best I can. Still, and this sounds like the standard cliché but it is actually the honest truth: every moment is practice past a certain point. Still, I do formal sitting when I feel like it, which is most days, and I do formal practices when I lay down to rest until I fall asleep. I do formal practices if I wake up and can’t sleep, which is often due to circadian disruption and working shift work evenings and nights. I formally practice often when driving, as paying a lot of attention to the immediate environment is a great idea when driving. I meditate when walking between patients, when looking them in the eye, when listening carefully to heart and lung sounds: all very meditative. See above for my formal practice list. b} What kind of practice schedule would you recommend for a beginner? A: That would very much depend on what you wanted to do, how fast you wanted to do it, and what resources and personal characteristics you had, so it would have to be tailored to the individual to answer that well. c) Here's an Americanized question - What technique have you found gives the best bang for the buck? A: It depends on what you want to do and what side-effects you are willing to tolerate, like medications. For fast progress in insight, I like rapid-style Mahasi practice in high dose on retreat about 18 hours per day, but it can be a very rough ride. For samatha, I think nothing beats candle-flame: see www.firekasina.org. That’s a coarse answer, as really it would depend on the person how I would answer that. 10) What is your definition of nibbana? Is it a state of eternal non-consciousness? If so, what's the point? Also if there is a gap in consciousness and it is discontinuous, what notices the gap? A: Nibbana is not defined by me, particularly, but traditionally in its technical definition it has two aspects: Nibbana without sense data and Nibbana with sense data. Nibbana without sense data is Fruition: reality vanishes and re-appears. It is a nice mental reset and teaches useful lessons, doing something good to the brain, and happens at the beginning of paths. It can help with the attainment of Nibbana with sense data, which is arahatship. In Nibbana with sense data, reality is just as it is, seen clearly, without ignorance, and the suffering caused by ignorance is eliminated. Because of this, both Nibbanas are highly recommended, but the later one is the true goal and very much worth it. These definitions hold up in practice and in theory. 11) In MCTB you briefly mention two Pure Land jhanas. Have you found any more Pure Land jhanas? What is each of them like, and how do you enter them? A: Kenneth Folk has forcefully claimed that the term you use is proprietarily his intellectual property, so I don’t use that term any more in keeping with his personal requirements for hegemony thereof. What I can say is that there are many extended states that can combine various pleasurable and skilful elements from the normal jhanas and add other qualities, so out there I do find lots of interesting territory, and past a certain point, if your concentration is good, you can learn to craft experiences that suit your tastes and imagination, with no obvious limits in that regard. If you can imagine it, you can find a way with strong concentration to experience it, at least temporarily. This explains the many worlds described in the old texts. You should direct further questions to the person who claims exclusive ownership of the term. 12) How can a practitioner, when in rough times, tell the difference between if they’re in a dark night arising as a necessary stage from skilful practice, or if they’re just frying themselves from unskilful or excessive practice? A: The two often go hand in hand, so the differentiation you make may not always be helpful. Signs of frying one’s self: uncontrolled emotional volatility, inability to keep one’s mouth closed when one should keep it closed, inability to function in relationships, inability to function at work, inability to maintain good relationships with dharma companions and teachers: such are the typical signs of both Dark Night gone awry and also of poor practice. Frying one’s self typically results when one is subtly or grossly fixated on something other than what is present here immediately, which also means that one’s practice is poor, as the only basis of good practice is what is right here, as this moment must not only contain but also be the answer. So, if you notice your practice is about something other than what is right here, you know that is poor practice and thus produces the ability to fry one’s self. Part of sorting out this balance is much more easily done in person with a teacher who knows you, who knows what you are capable of and your limits, who knows what the technique you are doing does both good and bad, and can read your tone of voice, body language, energetic quality, and help you balance your practice to avoid the extremes of agitation and dullness. In short, is is a very complex topic. Further, the differential diagnosis of people with the symptoms of frying themselves is wider than just Dark Night vs. Misapplied Effort, including all sorts of things from psychological to medical, as well as situational, so sorting this out can require good help from friends and/or teachers and/or other sorts of practitioners and healthcare providers, as well as experimentation and exploration of various strategies to counter and/or understand the factors creating the ill effects as well as the effects themselves and what they really are and aren’t. If this were simple to explain and do, then this stuff would be easily, which it obviously largely isn’t. Talking about attainments 13) Judging from anecdotes by you and also by Kenneth Folk, there's a bit more openness about attainments in places such as Burma. Any comments on this and any other cultural differences? A: I have never been to Burma, but in general in Asia you find that practitioners are much more willing to simply follow the straightforward instructions of teachers and do the practices rather than endlessly overthink the thing and thus scuttle themselves. There is a sort of open code about attainments in many meditation settings in Asia, as well as just more open dialogue sometimes about actual attainments, part of which is due to the fact of finding many more people around with actual attainments, this largely due to the phenomena of people actually practicing and actually following instructions, such as “concentrate on the breath”, “pay attention to the movements your feet” and “note it”, practical advice that many Westerners somehow seem to consider beneath their intellectual and hyper-psychological dignity. 14) There are a lot of people nowadays on the internet, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, claiming to be accomplished and teaching others. Why do you think there is such proliferation of this kind of thing, and how can people distinguish the genuine from the false? A: There are more real practitioners out there who actually do know things these days, at least in the West, and more people who would otherwise be obscure and isolated who are now able to reach people through the internet, so part of it is that there are more teachers who really do know things and really are able to reach people. However, in terms of sorting out the quality from the less-so, this is often difficult. I would stick to techniques that are time-tested most of the time: that is the first thing. If they are teaching methods that are well-known to work, then you are much more likely to have them work for you as well. As to the quality of the person themselves: look at what they produce: what do their students know? What good things bloom around that teacher? Do they walk their talk? Are they really interested in helping people? Are they down-to-earth and straightforward? Do you know people who know them as actual people and, if so, what are they like? Still, it is not easy, and plenty of people who have been well-vetted still end up being trouble, or a mix of blessing and curse. No particularly easy answers, or the dharma scandal sheets wouldn’t be as full of news as they always are. Tradition and innovation 15) You seem to be an advocate of pared down Buddhism by eliminating from the dharma anything that doesn't fit with your own view and experience. Don't you think there is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water by ignoring 2,500 years of practice and experience, especially if the causes and conditions which gave rise to, say, the Vajrayana, are not understood by you? A: I hardly know what you mean by this. I have advocated for a wide range of practices and that people are pragmatic and find what works for them. I run a forum that encourages a wide range of styles to suit people’s needs, resources, goals and tastes. I have practiced all sorts of things and encouraged people to practice all sorts of things. I have practiced Vajrayana but don’t talk much about it, considering those methods profound. Interestingly, the audiobook I am listening to now as I drive back and forth to work is mostly Vajrayana at its core. I am advocate of paring down the dharma of things that are harmful, useless, and impede people from reaching their meditative goals and potentials, but that is not an easy thing to define and often involves a careful evaluation of the person themselves and how they relate to various practices and concepts at that time. 16) Many people accuse you of teaching the extreme of nihilism. Are you aware of these criticisms, and if so, how would you respond? A: I don’t know of those criticisms and have no idea why people would say that. Thoughts? I am aware of people accusing me of teaching the opposite, that of Atman-Buddhism, as they pejoratively call it, but they are also wrong in this. Help me understand what they are saying and why and perhaps I will be better able to address this. 17) Have you corresponded with mainstream Theravada teachers? If so, what do they think of your teachings? How do you respond to their criticisms? A: I am in touch with many mainstream teachers of various kinds, but, oddly enough, I am becoming vastly more mainstream than I was before, this being a shift in the world of meditation more than much about myself, such that, what long ago seemed revolutionary and extreme now doesn’t appear so and is becoming commercialized, and, if the trend continues, I will likely do what everyone else eventually does, meaning become part of the stodgy and entrenched establishment fighting in my dotage for the maintenance of a regressive and out-dated conservative orthodoxy against the new young rebels. So it goes with most things like this. For example, Shinzen Young just asked me to be part of a special project with him to help sort out things related to standardized terminology related to meditation attainments, and will be working with some others on this, such as Culadasa. I have talked with people such as Joseph Goldstein and others about things and am aware of their perspectives. The criticisms and debates that I might think you are referring to are many, but most of them are very, very old debates, going back thousands of years, so my responses would likely look like standard responses that have arisen through the centuries, as do their replies. I actually just got back from an invite-only Dharma Teacher’s conference in New York at Omega Institute with a few hundred teachers, most of which would be considered pretty mainstream, and we had a jolly-good time talking about and sharing the dharma. Philosophy 18) Hi Daniel, may I ask you about your opinion concerning the strict dualistic view (the seer -> <- the seen) of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras? Thank you very much! A: I am not sure that Patanjali is advocating for strict dualism, and actually suspect the opposite, but I am no expert in Patanjali, just someone who read his Yoga Sutras some years ago and enjoyed them, particularly the parts about magick, which I found interesting and inspiring. 19) Is there rebirth after death? If not, then what's the point of practice? A: It is an old debate and question. Is there even rebirth moment to moment in this life? It really depends on what you mean by rebirth, and this is not just some intellectual debate, but really what it means for you in your moment and mind right now. There are tons of reasons to practice even if you take the view that there is no rebirth, as practice can make huge positive changes in this life. Further, if you believe there is rebirth, then it clearly creates good conditions for that next birth, so if you hold that view then you should still practice. Also, if you feel that getting off the round of rebirths as you conceive of it is the best option, then that should be good motivation to practice. If, instead, you subscribe to an ideal such as a Bodhisattva ideal and feel you should reincarnate skilfully to help all beings, that is clearly a great reason to practice. In short, however you view rebirth, you should practice well. Practicing well enough answers the question in ways that talking about it doesn’t. I have had past-life experiences that were very profound and informative, providing clear and deep insights into current causal patterns. I have seen that this moment is totally self-less, utterly discontinuous with any movement, and utterly ephemeral even within itself, including past-life experiences, so I find no self to be reborn even at this instant. I find both perspectives very practically useful within their scopes and no longer see any conflict at all. Causality rings out into the future, so creating positive effects in this stream of causality is beneficial now and in the future. There is no future, being only this transient and luminous moment which automatically self-liberates. Helpful? 20) What is your position on pure awareness in the Advaitic sense? I.e. as Swami Krishnananda says: ‘The whole universe is a spiritual unity and is one with the essential Brahman [which] is the ultimate Knower. [...] “There is no seer but That, no hearer but That, no thinker but That, no knower but That.” It is the eternal Subject of knowledge, no one knows it as the object of knowledge.’ A: How I would answer that would largely depend on the person I was talking to at the time. It would be easy to pick it apart phrase by phrase and word by word, to do it experientially or theoretically, but I think that would be missing the spirit of what he was trying to get at. The problem with translating lots of things to do with Vedanta is that, like basically all of the traditions, they use words in very specific ways that make more sense in that context and are teach designed to counter imbalances in a specified audience to point them at something useful. Specifically, concepts like “pure awareness” make much more sense at certain points in practice, and so sometimes pointing out things like that is a very good idea, as are concepts such as “intrinsic luminosity”. At other points in practice, such language and concepts can lead people into trouble, causing reification and solidification of things that are neither real nor solid. So, it would largely depend on the practitioner and what I thought would be best for them at that time. 21) What is your thought on non-duality? A: The experience of the perfect non-duality of the thought of non-duality and of the field of manifestation in which it arises is great and I highly recommend it. Miscellaneous 22) What will be the main differences between MCTB and MCTB2? From the section out now, there seems to be a touch more on 'allowing reality to reveal itself' - a bit of Zen influence? A: The differences are many and varied, but a more Mahamudra/Zen/Dzogchen/Narual approach is somewhat more incorporated into this version, largely as an attempt to counterbalance forces in MCTB that emphasized effort, themselves of which were attempts to counterbalance forces in much of the meditation world towards slackness and ambitionlessness. Thus, the target is moving as the world and audience changes, and figuring out how to keep people on the Middle Way requires shifting approaches as the deficiencies and excesses of the audience shift. 23) Have you had a brain scan or EEG done? If not, why not? If so, how does your brain compare with other, normal brains? A: By the kindness of researchers and those who funded them, I have spent 3.5 hours in an fMRI up at Yale with Dr Jud Brewer and Dr Willoughby Britton in a study measuring blood flow to the PCC (posterior cingulate cortex) as a proxy for function and providing slightly-delayed but close to real-time biofeedback on that during the study to measure the ability to activate and deactivate the PCC on command, the results of which were that I have control of the PCC and can activate and deactivate it on command and hold it in that chosen state stably, and also have a somewhat unusually large brain. I have been wired to Dr Jud Brewer’s 134-lead (128-lead plus motor leads) research-grade EEG at his lab at Yale and then later at The Center for Mindfulness in Worcester, MA (a la John Kabat Zinn) for a good number of hours, which was using beam-forming algorithms to look at specific frequencies and areas they also felt were related to the PCC, the results of which are that I can activate and deactivate the PCC on command and hold it in that chosen state. I am very grateful for those opportunities to play with those evolving technologies and be one small part of advancing the science of the study of the brain and how measuring it relates or doesn’t to meditative practice. FYI: the PCC helps regulate whether or not attention is focused on the material/immediate/physical sphere of experience or the mental/internal sphere of experience, so far as I can tell from playing with those technologies. To conclude: 24) Anything you'd like to add? A: As stated above in numerous places, how I would answer many questions would relate a lot to the person I was talking to and where they were in their practice. Thus, read any answers with a grain of salt, as how they might apply to your specific situation could be very different than how they might apply to someone else with a different set of paradigms, concepts, cultural background, and practice experiences and abilities. Thanks for your interest in practice and for the opportunity to clarify things. Let me know if this was useful and if you have further questions or responses. Be well and practice well, Daniel
  15. We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

    I am the reincarnation of Julius Caesar. I know I'm right because you can't prove me wrong. See the problem? Any hypothesis has to be considered untrue until it's proved to be true or false. You can't treat a hypothesis as true by default, especially if it's unfalsifiable. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that there IS an eternal consciousness, not on Karl to prove that there ISN'T. As for the whole 'objective' thing - some things are subjective, some things are objective. Anything that's not a matter of opinion is objective. If anyone observes particles, they affect them - this is objective because all people have this effect. It isn't a matter of opinion whether observers influence particles, so this is an objective truth. People had differing opinions on what causes lightning, but it was always static, not Thor or Zeus. People believing lightning is caused by static doesn't cause it to be so - it just is. Similarly, whether or not biocentrism is true is an objective truth. It's either true or false. If you disagree on this, then there is no point debating whether or not biocentrism is true because the word 'truth' is meaningless.
  16. Recommendations / esoteric exercises

    Hardcore, you say? What you want is 'Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha', by Daniel Ingram. MCTB is freely available online, and the updated version 'MCTB2' should be out in the near future. Very much focused on practice, pragmatisim, states and stages, real attainment. We recently interviewed Ingram: http://thedaobums.com/topic/38892-tdbs-interview-with-daniel-ingram/ Kenneth Folk's unfinished book is also worth reading, it's the same sort of stuff. http://contemplativefitnessbook.com/
  17. How to become asexual, or transcend sex needs...

    Accept your natural orientation. You don't need to become asexual any more than I need to become straight/gay/bi - sexual desire isn't inherently anti-cultivation or anything.
  18. We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

    Interesting theory, but why then is it that neurological things can affect consciousness? IMO idealism (such as the above theory - consciousness having primacy over matter) doesn't stand up to neuroscience, but materialism doesn't stand up to the hard problem. My current view is that the mental and physical components of existence are ontologically equal, interacting in some way not yet understood. The whole area is very interesting and I'm sure in however long it takes to start proper inter-disciplinary research we'll be looking back on the current theories as incredibly backward.
  19. If not a Creator, then What?

    This is going to be way too skimmy and shallow, but I can only be bothered to spend so long on this. Here goes: 1) Argument from change - let's assume that the conclusion 'there must be something outside the universe' is correct. Why God? Multiverse theories would apply just as well. 2) Efficient causality - there could be an endless series of caused causes (as in multiverse) because once A has caused B, B can exist without A. But let's assume there must be an uncaused cause. Saying 'this is God' is begging the question. Why couldn't the big bang itself be that uncaused cause? 3) Time and contingency - anthropic principle, and time would be meaningless if nothing existed. 4) Degrees of perfection - something that smells infinitely bad can only do so if it exists. Therefore, an infinitely bad smell exists. 5) Design - anthropic principle, argument from inability to imagine how chance could produce this stuff. 6) Kalam - a being outside time cannot make a decision, as this is an inherantly temporal process. There can be no free will without time to consider options. And applying the first premise to the big bang singularity is iffy. 7) Contingency - substitute God for BBS. 8) World as interacting whole - assuming the cause would have to be intelligent, and also a mind is composed of interacting parts itself! 9) Miracles - assuming they happen, it's still an argument from ignorance. Before we knew how lightning works, we said it was Thor. 10) Consciousness - is the universe wholly intelligible? I see no reason to assume God just because consciousness exists and we don't understand it yet. There are many theories besides God (however defined), so an argument for God based on consciousness needs to define God well, and consider other theories. What if 'chunks' of consciousness exist, in cause and effect, just as physical particles etc do, as part of a Mental + Physical universe, with no ontological absolute or summum bonum in any form? Better to be honest about not knowing for the moment. 11) Truth - "There is too much about the theory of knowledge that needs to be said before this could work as a persuasive demonstration." 12) Origin of idea of God - a human concept of perfection isn't equivalent to perfection, an imperfect mind can imagine its own idea of perfection. Different religions all say their God is perfect, but omnibenevolence looks very different even across the Old and New Testaments - different imagined perfect beings! 13) Ontological Argument - similar issue to 4). 14) Moral Argument - assumes an objective morality can only have a source in some form of God. Morality is only meaningful to a mind, which can reason morality based on how actions affect itself and others. 15) Conscience - let's assume that obeying conscience is a moral absolute. Evolutionary psychology and social psychology explain the conscience fairly well, and people can be obligatated by things less than themselves - when survival instincts overthrow suicidal desires, for example. 16) Desire - the desire for something eternal and absolute results from people wanting good things and not recognising dukkha (if some is good, I must get all!). With all loss of false hope for a summum bonum (oh, there's no all that I can get after all, and that's OK), one stops desiring it and finds profound peace with what is real. Perhaps that desire for an absolute is the real problem, not the lack of its' fulfilment? See Kenneth Folk's batgap interview. 17) Aesthetic experience - why is God necessary for Bach to be beautiful? 18) Religious experience - psychology, and perspectives and experiences like expressed in my response to 16) also exist. 19) Common consent - ref. my response to 16). So many people seek a summum bonum because of ignorance. 20) Pascal's wager - someone can't choose what they believe, and an intelligent God would be able to tell the difference between fire insurance and real belief. A merciful God doesn't punish people for something they can't control. Finally, the argument doesn't even attempt to prove that God exists, only that it is safer to believe that God exists - a subtle but important distinction.
  20. Information on the stages practice leads through, including dark nights, are out there. But not nearly as openly and up-front as they should be! Daniel Ingram and others have written much on this.
  21. What is your practice?

    Anapanasati (Alan Wallace - though he comes from a visuddhimagga-jhana perspective while I find the sutta-jhana perspective more reasonable) and Mahasi-style vipashyana, mainly. A bit of qigong (Damo Mitchell) occasionally. Not yet to jhana or awakening, but getting there. In the last few years my memory, understanding, concentration, emotional maturity, goodwill and stuff have got so much better. Though some of that is down to just growing up.
  22. I have a problem with imagining

    Don't overthink dude. Remember what an orange looks like? There, you just visualised an orange! Now visualise smoke leaving your nose when you exhale. No wrong way to do it.
  23. Osho Rajneesh Cult Documentary

    "There's a lesson to learn from everybody, even if it's what not to do." - some guy in a cheesy TV movie.
  24. Suffering

    Bump: This is really the best I can say without knowing you in real life. If you are in a valid dark night from good practice (option 2), keep going. If not, then IMHO you are just making yourself clinically depressed with nihilistic thoughts, and you need to see where you're going wrong with that. The Byron Katie method may be helpful, but really therapy such as CBT may be a good move. In any case, I wish you the best for getting to a better place as soon as possible. Reaching out on here was a good first step, and I hope some of the advice you've been given pulls you through.
  25. Suffering

    OK, you're alone because you don't do anything. So why don't you do things? Music, forums and games are all just you distracting yourself from how you really feel and what needs to be done about it - they're you alone in a room not doing anything that will really fulfill you. Is there really no way for you to socialize other than partying? Any hobbies you could join a club for or something? Part-time job? Volunteering? What I hear you really saying is: A - I don't do anything because it's all pointless (per the OP - 'everything dies'), so I am alone, but don't want to be alone. B - this is making me suffer. C - so I will distract myself from the loneliness by listening to music and posting on forums and playing games. What I am saying is: A - you don't do anything because you think it's all pointless (per the OP - 'everything dies'), so you're alone. B - this makes you suffer. C - get some CBT or at least find some way to change your 'everything dies' mindset D - go do something with other people in real life.