fanatical Buddhists

[Vajrahridaya]

Its not that the teachings are very mental, Ralis. Its because you have an aversion to certain deep-held ideas which happens to clash with your present reality.

 

One who has attained will help others to attain at their own level, not at, say, your own high realizational level. This is why the emphasis is on the unity of wisdom and method, View and practice, Path and Fruit, absolute and relative, Wisdom and Compassion - timing is key. One who keeps the View but discards method will tend to be spacey and floaty, attached to bliss-states and become arrogant, while one who emphasize Path/Methods/Teachings without recognizing View has diminished motivation, tend to be envious of those who enjoy blissful trips, and could lose zeal, zest and eventually lose heart as well. Best is to find a balanced, well-defined combination of both.

 

Before direct experience, work needs doing. After direct experience, Work does itself. Its still work(practice).

 

Wow, do I get to be this wise when I get older? Very well put vajrabro.

[Vajrahridaya]

I remember when I was in group practice in the mid 90's. I'd see someone be experiencing bliss, and looking like he/she was seeing something special, not merely looking but really immersed in something deeply worth while to be aware of. I'd just contemplate, I am one with that person, that person and I have the same potential, I as well can experience that, etc. After a while, I noticed others were doing that with me as well when I started to fly the space ship... LOL!

 

Discipline in practice and contemplation of experiences that have happened during practice in reflection of the texts left by historical masters is key. To make ones whole life the practice is key, first by effort, then by natural process of progress of integration.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I am a beginning meditator. I am still at the very beginning stage of simply practicing of staying aware of my breath. I do Anapana.

 

 

I know you didn't ask me. But, all the stages of meditation I've experienced started out with Anapana, and just offering my thoughts to my breath.

 

First your brain gets mushy with blissful energy and your whole body too, this increases in bliss... more happens as you progress in thought stilling.

 

Believe me, I know I seem all intellectual now, but it's just how I express my experiences which is a new phenomena for me. I used to not talk about anything up until maybe about 8 or 9 years ago. Anyway... just keep up with Anapana, and keep offering your thoughts to the space in between the ingoing and outgoing breath, merging in your heart region. Sometimes I'd get stuck in the outgoing and in going breath too though.. automatically, and I'd deeply relax while focusing on the place where the spine meets the brain as I'd feel some tension there and just breath into it... then wonderful.

 

Sometimes my head would drop down and my chin would hit my chest automatically and I'd go into something... All sorts of stuff happens in meditation as you go deeper. But for me, I always started with Anupana for the most part, for a few years with mantra during the ingoing and outgoing breaths. But then the space between the breaths starts elongating during this practice. I started with 5 minutes, then 10, then 30 minutes than an hour, then I was able to go hours over the course of a year, then I kept the intensity for years afterwards.

 

Anyway... just keep at it. The mind will settle, just let go of all people and places. I would offer all that to my breath and mantra. I would actually contemplate for meditation when those thoughts arose that none of that exists right now, right here... oh.. that doesn't exist either. I would go through all sorts of sensations, "I need to pee" when I just went before meditation. The mind will do all sorts of things in order to not go within and still itself, it's scared of it's death and opening up to a deeper realm of reference.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

Wow, do I get to be this wise when I get older? Very well put vajrabro.

You're very kind, VJ. Thank you.

 

I am not wise... not sagely, and have no lofty ideals. But i do take Buddha's fundamental encouragement in the form of the Noble Eightfold Path quite literally, having investigated and found it just as relevant today as it did years ago when i was very much an ego-driven idiot and rebel without a cause. In short, when i first began applying the prescribed path taught by Buddha, it was reflected against real-time, very present anguished states and mental suffering.

 

The Eightfold Path reveals the following breakdown:

 

1) Right View and Right Intention leads to and fulfills wisdom.

 

2) Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood leads to and fulfills virtue and ethical conduct.

 

Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration leads to and fulfills both (1) and (2).

Edited July 14, 2011 by CowTao

[Marblehead]

Wow, do I get to be this wise when I get older? Very well put vajrabro.

 

Only after you have emptied your tea cup.

[ralis]

Its not that the teachings are very mental, Ralis. Its because you have an aversion to certain deep-held ideas which happens to clash with your present reality.

 

 

 

That is your opinion only! Your attempts at mind reading fail! Have you realized what you so fervently write on here?

 

I render an opinion based on my own experience, then you and Vajraji make judgments of me. Hypocrisy at it's finest expression. I see no difference between the Buddhist club here and the religious fundamentalists here in the U.S. All are extreme fanatics!

Edited July 14, 2011 by ralis

[C T]

That is your opinion only! Your attempts at mind reading fail! Have you realized what you so fervently write on here?

 

I render an opinion based on my own experience, then you and Vajraji make judgments of me. Hypocrisy at it's finest expression.

Yeah, you're right. No point going further. I can see you have no wish to engage in any meaningful dialogue, and never have, come to think of it.

[ralis]

Yeah, you're right. No point going further. I can see you have no wish to engage in any meaningful dialogue, and never have, come to think of it.

 

The so called meaningful dialog would only be engaged with the concepts that the Buddhist club members hold here. Very one sided if you ask me. This thread is about Buddhist fanatics and IMO you fit that category.

 

Your judgment of me leads to no meaningful dialog.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ralis

[C T]

The so called meaningful dialog would only be engaged with the concepts that the Buddhist club members hold here. Very one sided if you ask me. This thread is about Buddhist fanatics and IMO you fit that category.

 

Your judgment of me leads to no meaningful dialog.

If you say so.

[rex]

Fanatics? What a lot of old bollocks! As Bernard observes in Yes, Minister "It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he is round the twist."

[JustARandomPanda]

The problem I had with all this 23 yrs. ago is that these teachings are very mental, not unlike the rest of the Tibetan trip. When I read and was taught about Bodhicitta I put it all aside and looked for the real experience and knowledge of what is being talked about and taught. I am not interested in extensive commentary describing in precise detail about what the heart mind is. The heart mind can't be described or verbalized. It is non verbal. The direct experience is what matters and where to focus.

 

Interesting. I actually agree with this. At least speaking only for me.

 

Mainly because A) I like to read a lot and B ) what I read invariably gets turned into an intellectualization or concept. And if it's one thing either of those is not it's actually experiencing something.

 

This has created a dilemma for me oftentimes. How far do I read in order for said Text to render assistance in actually experiencing heartmind and how do I tell when it's pushed me over the edge into too much intellectualization and conceptualizing something?

 

At the moment I think I tend to do the latter. Mainly because my reading has outstripped my attainments. Which creates yet other problems.

 

1) Builds up an expectation of a way a certain attainment should be when maybe the real experience ends up being something partially or even completely different.

 

2) Builds up impatience for attainments. I find this a very hard one to not give into! I read or hear about heartmind and damnit I wanna know it for myself. The more I read the greater the desire. The greater the desire the shorter my patience. The shorter my patience the harder it is to sit for the longer periods of time probably necessary to actually finally experience heartmind.

 

Do I think those texts are harmful in most cases? I'm guessing probably not. But for me I can't seem to escape the expectations they build and the fallout thereof.

 

I think Ralis's objections to you CowTao have some basis in fact - at least for some people some of the time (like me) and maybe all of the time (quite possibly me).

[C T]

Interesting. I actually agree with this. At least speaking only for me.

 

Mainly because A) I like to read a lot and B ) what I read invariably gets turned into an intellectualization or concept. And if it's one thing either of those is not it's actually experiencing something.

 

This has created a dilemma for me oftentimes. How far do I read in order for said Text to render assistance in actually experiencing heartmind and how do I tell when it's pushed me over the edge into too much intellectualization and conceptualizing something?

 

At the moment I think I tend to do the latter. Mainly because my reading has outstripped my attainments. Which creates yet other problems.

 

1) Builds up an expectation of a way a certain attainment should be when maybe the real experience ends up being something partially or even completely different.

 

2) Builds up impatience for attainments. I find this a very hard one to not give into! I read or hear about heartmind and damnit I wanna know it for myself. The more I read the greater the desire. The greater the desire the shorter my patience. The shorter my patience the harder it is to sit for the longer periods of time probably necessary to actually finally experience heartmind.

 

Do I think those texts are harmful in most cases? I'm guessing probably not. But for me I can't seem to escape the expectations they build and the fallout thereof.

 

I think Ralis's objections to you CowTao have some basis in fact - at least for some people some of the time (like me) and maybe all of the time (quite possibly me).

It appears you are studying yourself very well, Serene Blue. That's great.

 

For insights to reveal themselves, concentrated effort to see our actions, thoughts and stuff is very helpful. One of the tenets of the Eightfold Path says in order to cultivate Samadhi, one needs Right Concentration. Right Concentration is partly cultivated by the study and contemplation of relevant texts.

 

We ought not to fool ourselves into thinking that we are so realized that we can sever our relationship with the relevant texts and teachings. Even a Geshe (A Tibetan Doctor of Philosophy), which takes about 20 years to achieve full qualification, has to continue to study texts each day.

 

What Ralis talks about is to constantly remain in a non-localized absorptive state, which is wonderful, and can lead to a lot of blissful experiences. But we cannot remain there all the time, can we? There's wood to be chopped and water to be carried! The down side of this sort of absorption is that we can be trapped by the bliss and become overly spacey and expansive, and could neglect to integrate the spiritual with the mundane. Taken to extreme, people who choose this way of being can become arrogant and dismissive.

 

FInding a balance is the way to do it, which is the reason why its called Heart-Mind - it needs to unite both the heart and the mind to achieve the desired results. Heart implies maintaining an expansive, bliss-like awareness to allow things to be, and Mind implies looking deeply into why things are. Harmonizing these two aspects is more fulfilling than just having a preference for one over the other.

 

The solution is to find your own pace. Balance resting in passive, non-conceptual, non-local meditation with active, investigative contemplative practices. And don't you worry if unable to sit for long periods. Actually, its better to sit for short periods (how short depends on the individual) over the course of a day, rather than doing it at a stretch. Intervals allow for space to practice and really absorb what we learn in the meditations. Personally, i do on average 3 half-hour sittings in the daytime, maybe 4 at most, and at night, when the house/pets settle down, i sometimes do two 1 hour sessions with an hour break between. Sometimes though i'd just say to heck with it... preferring to watch TV or play some solo scrabble instead.

 

Either way, try to release expectations. I know, everyone says this... but there really isn't any magic formula. Just remember not to be too hard on yourself. Whatever comes up, impatience and other self-defeating tendencies... just allow them to rise and subside on their own. You can do this when you keep to mindful awareness of neither grasping nor averting anything that comes to the surface.

 

All the best to your practice!

 

 

 

PS - May i recommend a good book which i know you will enjoy (if you haven't already read it) : Pure Heart, Enlightened Mind - The Life and Letters of an Irish Zen Saint by Maura O'Halloran. Perfect for clarifying some of your thoughts. http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=32935&-Token.Action=ℑ=1

Edited July 15, 2011 by CowTao

[3bob]

Serene Blue,

I think a very important thread could be started on what you've noted below:

 

"...This has created a dilemma for me oftentimes. How far do I read in order for said Text to render assistance in actually experiencing heartmind and how do I tell when it's pushed me over the edge into too much intellectualization and conceptualizing something?

 

"At the moment I think I tend to do the latter. Mainly because my reading has outstripped my attainments. Which creates yet other problems.

 

1) Builds up an expectation of a way a certain attainment should be when maybe the real experience ends up being something partially or even completely different.

 

2) Builds up impatience for attainments. I find this a very hard one to not give into! I read or hear about heartmind and damnit I wanna know it for myself. The more I read the greater the desire. The greater the desire the shorter my patience. The shorter my patience the harder it is to sit for the longer periods of time probably necessary to actually finally experience heartmind.

 

Do I think those texts are harmful in most cases? I'm guessing probably not. But for me I can't seem to escape the expectations they build and the fallout thereof..."

 

Well I know many of us can relate to these points!

A few simplistic generalizations that you've probably heard and read a hundred times and which may not apply to you, so this may not help much: (?)

 

Attainments as in certain types of experiences and powers that can be gained can also be lost or go awry, for such things are meant to be tools and signposts for help - and not the goal of spiritual practices meant for uncovering what we already are which can not really be gained or lost by any power of mind because such powers are always secondary to and side benefits of the quintessential spiritual truth and foundational-base that of itself can not be lost, gained or go awry! In consideration of that great masters that have or who are walking the earth now still have to practice the very beginning step of non-violence 24/7 in every action and deed or loose any siddhis attained and possibly far worse in reverse effects. Thus the path unfolds from this first humble step and is also and forever maintained by that step... yet how often do many of us at this website sometimes break this step while also talking of and referencing all sorts of very far out inner mystical stuff!!

 

Om

Edited July 15, 2011 by 3bob

[forestofemptiness]

It's becoming quite clear to me that the path isn't about attaining some state, but being aware of the various states you pass through. If you take enough snapshots, you can compare them to see what you're not.

[Vajrahridaya]

It's becoming quite clear to me that the path isn't about attaining some state, but being aware of the various states you pass through. If you take enough snapshots, you can compare them to see what you're not.

 

Indeed, all states are empty, and none of them are an ultimate Self. Infinite regress. Total freedom!

[JustARandomPanda]

It's becoming quite clear to me that the path isn't about attaining some state, but being aware of the various states you pass through. If you take enough snapshots, you can compare them to see what you're not.

 

The problem with this for me is that it just sounds so BORING.

 

I mean I supposedly already AM whatever I'm trying to uncover. Meaning it sounds like my plain old ordinary monkey mind is also a manifestation of this Buddha Nature or whatever it is. If it's already manifested why am I bothering to uncover it? I could just go play my PSP instead comfortable in the knowledge that no matter what state manifests Buddha Nature is doing it's 'thang".

 

BTW I sometimes get confused as to whether Primeordial Mind is the same thing as Buddha Nature. GiH likes to talk about Mind a lot. I read somewhere - if I recall correctly - that he equated Mind with Rigpa. In fact I seem to recall him fussing with VH about this. Why, he said, talk about distinguishing the fancy word Rigpa and Sems when it's easier and more easily understood to use the words to distinguish Mind from Mindset?

 

I confess I'm not particularly clear on what each is.

 

I have no idea where this idea came from but Primordial Mind is like the Original...Hmm...something...self? Well VH would just say self is not the same as Mindstream. But to me in practical terms they sound like they end up being the same thing. Synonyms. Is it even possible to reify "Mindstream"?

 

I'm unclear as to why VH objects to the word self but accepts the word mindstream. GiH do you agree with VH's distinction between the two?

[Vajrahridaya]

I have no idea where this idea came from but Primordial Mind is like the Original...Hmm...something...self? Well VH would just say self is not the same as Mindstream. But to me in practical terms they sound like they end up being the same thing. Synonyms. Is it even possible to reify "Mindstream"?

 

I'm unclear as to why VH objects to the word self but accepts the word mindstream. GiH do you agree with VH's distinction between the two?

 

They are the same, as when self is imputed on the mind stream, that's your relative self, but upon analysis, it does not exist on it's own and in fact is empty of inherent existence and only has relative existence. But, I disagree with the term Self as applied to a static underlying basis, or a Self existing source of all beings. I use the word self all the time, but when you ultimate it, make it real on it's own, as in self existing, that's when one is not in alignment with insight into nature, at least not complete insight.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I have no idea where this idea came from but Primordial Mind...

 

A little more to say,

 

When Buddhists say primordial mind, they are talking about emptiness, the fact that mind has always been empty of self existence and dependently originated in and through each moment. When you realize that, you are merely being aware of the fact that your mind has always been empty of self existence, it's not a Self in itself. Buddhists never call primordial mind a self of all, because it's really still talking about dependent origination and the fact that it has always been empty, it's not talking about a self existence.

 

It's not that the experience is different from other traditions, it's just that through understanding dependent origination, you have insight into the experience and it doesn't lock you in. When you make the experience a Self, it locks you in, even if you remain immersed in this experience, and integrate all your other experiences with it, as if it were the Self of all, which is blissful awareness. It does not liberate one from the seed of ignorance, which in fact is clinging to self existence of any kind according to Buddhism, either relative or ultimate. No clinging, so primordial mind is never considered a Self in Buddhism as that's not the insight that liberates.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

The problem with this for me is that it just sounds so BORING.

 

I mean I supposedly already AM whatever I'm trying to uncover. Meaning it sounds like my plain old ordinary monkey mind is also a manifestation of this Buddha Nature or whatever it is. If it's already manifested why am I bothering to uncover it? I could just go play my PSP instead comfortable in the knowledge that no matter what state manifests Buddha Nature is doing it's 'thang".

 

Because you have to be aware of it, if you want liberation from the different passing states even while they are happening. If you don't want liberation and you want the up's and down's the birth's and death's without memory of the conditions which arose in order to bring you to this life. If you don't have memory of your own history, or awareness of emptiness, there is still psychological suffering and you never know your own true nature.

 

Also, Buddhanature is not a Self, and it doesn't do anything. Buddhanature is synonymous with emptiness. Dependent origination does all the DO'ing. The 12 links of individual existence intermingling with all others, interlinked with the radiance's of the elements on levels beyond the 5 senses.

[thuscomeone]

A little more to say,

 

When Buddhists say primordial mind, they are talking about emptiness, the fact that mind has always been empty of self existence and dependently originated in and through each moment. When you realize that, you are merely being aware of the fact that your mind has always been empty of self existence, it's not a Self in itself. Buddhists never call primordial mind a self of all, because it's really still talking about dependent origination and the fact that it has always been empty, it's not talking about a self existence.

 

It's not that the experience is different from other traditions, it's just that through understanding dependent origination, you have insight into the experience and it doesn't lock you in. When you make the experience a Self, it locks you in, even if you remain immersed in this experience, and integrate all your other experiences with it, as if it were the Self of all, which is blissful awareness. It does not liberate one from the seed of ignorance, which in fact is clinging to self existence of any kind according to Buddhism, either relative or ultimate. No clinging, so primordial mind is never considered a Self in Buddhism as that's not the insight that liberates.

Yes, exactly. But I've always been confused as to why it is referred to as "mind." Why not just call it emptiness?Sure mind itself is empty, but calling emptiness "primordial mind" has always seemed just to complicate things; at least for me. It makes it sound like some cosmic consciousness.

 

I think this is the problem that has arisen in the other thread. "Mind," as in awareness, is taken to be the source -- the creative potential. When actually, emptiness is that creative potential. And emptiness includes and is beyond mind/awareness. In other words, mind is emptiness. But emptiness is what allows mind to be.

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, exactly. But I've always been confused as to why it is referred to as "mind." Why not just call it emptiness?Sure mind itself is empty, but calling emptiness "primordial mind" has always seemed just to complicate things; at least for me. It makes it sound like some cosmic consciousness.

 

Because it helps your mind get it, because it is your awareness that is coming to understand it, it makes it seem more organic and personal as it's the primordial nature of your own mind. That is all, the Buddha never used that phraseology, it's really just a development in order to help people over the years in India originally. But, if it confuses you, then it's not valuable. Also, understand that this term tathagatagarbha (translated into english as Buddhanture) is a sanskrit term. The term primordial mind is an English approximate as well of Rigpa, or sometimes Alayavijnana, which is where many issues in understanding arise from, in translation.

 

The people who these teachings were used to teach originally, did not have as much of a problem I would assume, because they had a different set of language symbols floating around in their minds, a different cultural conditioning that was closer to the Shakyamuni than ours.

 

This is why translating the Dharma into English is a subtle and nuanced task. The same realization will have to manifest through the symbology of English. Just as Tibetan Buddhism became a dictionary term, so will American Buddhism eventually, as more and more Americans realize the Tathagatagarbha, or Rigpa, there will be clarifications through English terminology that once appeared in Pali, Sanskrit and Tibetan, just as I'm sure the original translators of the Sanskrit scriptures into Chinese for Ch'an and then for Zen in Japan had to do over many years.

[goldisheavy]

Interesting. I actually agree with this. At least speaking only for me.

 

Mainly because A) I like to read a lot and B ) what I read invariably gets turned into an intellectualization or concept. And if it's one thing either of those is not it's actually experiencing something.

 

This has created a dilemma for me oftentimes. How far do I read in order for said Text to render assistance in actually experiencing heartmind and how do I tell when it's pushed me over the edge into too much intellectualization and conceptualizing something?

 

At the moment I think I tend to do the latter. Mainly because my reading has outstripped my attainments. Which creates yet other problems.

 

1) Builds up an expectation of a way a certain attainment should be when maybe the real experience ends up being something partially or even completely different.

 

2) Builds up impatience for attainments. I find this a very hard one to not give into! I read or hear about heartmind and damnit I wanna know it for myself. The more I read the greater the desire. The greater the desire the shorter my patience. The shorter my patience the harder it is to sit for the longer periods of time probably necessary to actually finally experience heartmind.

 

Do I think those texts are harmful in most cases? I'm guessing probably not. But for me I can't seem to escape the expectations they build and the fallout thereof.

 

I think Ralis's objections to you CowTao have some basis in fact - at least for some people some of the time (like me) and maybe all of the time (quite possibly me).

 

Heartmind is not an attainment. It's simply the core of your being. You should assume you already have it and stop looking for it as if it were like a third hand you've been overlooking all these years or something like that.

 

A lot of times teachings talk about things which you are supposed to intuitively feel you already have or instantly relate to. If you don't intuitively connect with the heartmind concept, then its appeal is lost and you need a more skillful teaching.

 

The best thing to do is the following:

 

1. Forget all the teachings.

 

2. Determine what your real problem is, if any, in your own language and on your own terms. Don't let anyone tell you what your problem is.

 

3. If there is no problem in your life, you're done, do not proceed to step number 4, quit here at this step.

 

4. If you do have a problem, try to feel it and formulate it in the best way you can. Usually there are many ways to formulate the same problem. Some formulations are more superficial and some are less. Some formulations may even lead to a direct insight. It's important to keep the feeling of the problem connected with the formulation at all times. Never allow formulation to become separate from how you feel. Never allow a formulation life of its own.

 

5. See if you can solve the problem yourself. Don't give up too soon.

 

6. If you cannot solve the problem yourself, look for inspiration among various wisdom traditions. Looking for inspiration is different from seeking to slavishly follow. Once the inspiration has been found go back to step 4 with the newly found inspiration in mind.

 

7. Healthy condition, life is good.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[C T]

From Jigmed Lingpa (a 'Treasure Revealer' or Terton of great significance in the Nyingma Tradition) - -

 

In this greater vehicle, in the meditation of mengagde, the realization of the essence of the mind itself, which from primordial time is present as the great liberation, is called intrinsic awareness (Rig-Pa). By maintaining the continuity of that realized awareness, one attains enlightenment by force.

 

For a person who is still on the ordinary path of training, when he sees a mountain, in the first moment it is unavoidable not to have the thought, "this is a mountain", but in the second moment, because of the (on-going) *perfection of the power of the mind and mental events which analyze the nature of the mountain, the concept of mountain disappear without any trace. At that time, although the appearance of the mountain (in the mind) has not ceased, one will gain experience in dwelling in the ultimate nature, in which there is no apprehension of (the appearance of the mountain). Having purified all the phenomenal existents as the simultaneous liberation-at-arising, to unify the appearances and mind is the unerring Dzogpa Chenpo.

 

*Perfection refers to the practice of recognizing, stabilizing and resting in pristine awareness without remainder.

[ralis]

Heartmind is not an attainment. It's simply the core of your being. You should assume you already have it and stop looking for it as if it were like a third hand you've been overlooking all these years or something like that.

 

A lot of times teachings talk about things which you are supposed to intuitively feel you already have or instantly relate to. If you don't intuitively connect with the heartmind concept, then its appeal is lost and you need a more skillful teaching.

 

The best thing to do is the following:

 

1. Forget all the teachings.

 

2. Determine what your real problem is, if any, in your own language and on your own terms. Don't let anyone tell you what your problem is.

 

3. If there is no problem in your life, you're done, do not proceed to step number 4, quit here at this step.

 

4. If you do have a problem, try to feel it and formulate it in the best way you can. Usually there are many ways to formulate the same problem. Some formulations are more superficial and some are less. Some formulations may even lead to a direct insight. It's important to keep the feeling of the problem connected with the formulation at all times. Never allow formulation to become separate from how you feel. Never allow a formulation life of its own.

 

5. See if you can solve the problem yourself. Don't give up too soon.

 

6. If you cannot solve the problem yourself, look for inspiration among various wisdom traditions. Looking for inspiration is different from seeking to slavishly follow. Once the inspiration has been found go back to step 4 with the newly found inspiration in mind.

 

7. Healthy condition, life is good.

 

 

Thanks for posting this. Especially, the heart mind being the core of our being. That is the bottom line.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for posting this. Especially, the heart mind being the core of our being. That is the bottom line.

 

It's not the core of our being, it's the core potential of "our" being empty and inter-dependent.

 

A very subtle difference between clinging to experience and seeing through it, thereby deepening it's integration with relativity and fluctuation.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Vajrahridaya