Astral Projection, OBE’s and other spooky things.

[Fixed Cross]

Agreed.
I think this is essentially Confucius' method of taming men.
He, too, put a lot of water to the wine of Buddhism, and made it, it seems to me, into a mere tool to placate people, and have them believe their happiness is entirely a matter of how they look at what they have.
It is a most efficient pacifier.

Worse even is that it sets up the weakest, most spineless people to take on position of moral and psychological authority. The aforementioned "mindful ones". They take it from sloth to rot.

[gib]

I disagree. Buddhist and Buddhist communities require the disengagement of emotions from expression and the disidentification from emotions. And if you express a range of emotions, you will find yourself under social pressures. The injunctions against desire are even more explicit. Yes, certain functions of the neocortex are also disidentified with, but the neocortex, for example sensory perception and control and focus. It is a top down control system - as are many religions, but very much focused on learning not to embody and express emotions.

Is that what they tell you they're doing? Learning not to express emotion?

Finding yourself under social pressure for going against the norm or defying expectations isn't that surprising. That's the human aspect of the Buddhist. It comes with every human institution. It comes even in Christianity, one of the world's most judgemental religions (IMNSHO), despite passages from scripture that prescribe the opposite ("judge not, lest ye be judged"). But I don't think there's anything in Buddhist doctrine that says: thou shalt judge those who express emotion.

And don't get me wrong. I celebrate emotion too. I've just found that certain techniques (some Buddhist, some not) have helped to exercise control over one's mind, which *can* help to control certain emotions.

Of course many buddhists just do the disidentification and suppression mainly in meditation, but the goals is to do this all the time. Whose goal? Moving around in mindfulness, disidentified with emotions and thoughts (the latter not all that the neorcotex is) and controlling expression. You get good at that the emotional body does not develop and it does not participate in the life of the individual.

I've heard Buddhist say the same thing: the goal is to remain in that meditative state all the time. However, this goal is still a choice up to the individual. And there will always be group think and conformity in any religion, which means a sharing of similar goals (often with social pressure to boot). Personally, I don't know how anything can get done by remaining in that state all the time, but maybe I'm imagining that state wrong. In any case, gaining practice at something means making it more easy to do all the time, so it wouldn't be surprising if many Buddhists who have gained a ton of practice at meditation can do it easily 90% of the time. And if you can do it easily 90% of the time, why not? I would agree with your sentiments if it came to practitioners who were forcing themselves to do it all the time, and if it's forced, I don't think you're really doing it. It's like faking it, and nothing more than suppressing emotions and thoughts (which I don't think is the same thing as what Buddhists are doing).

They are attached to not identifying and expressing emotions. Try going in to one of these communities and temples and being a passionate, emotionally expressive person. You will find that they judge and have a dualism at the heart of their supposed non-judgemental acceptance, and it will not be pleasant, even if they behave 'calmly.'

I'm not sure what this has to do with social engagement. Being attached to not identifying and expressing emotions is not the same as being attached to social engagements. And I've met lots of Buddhists who have absolutely no qualms expressing emotion... so long as it's happy, loving emotions. <-- They don't mind showing these when they engage with people socially.

I have been to Buddhist organizations all over the West and East, and it's a rule. These guys are not like, say, shamans or druids or pagans, for example.

It's not too surprising that this would be the case. And even though I don't think there's anything in Buddhist doctrine that says one must suppress their emotions or that one must judge those who don't, it's sort of implied in the sense that the Buddhist goal involves detachment from emotions. It's very likely that people will associate that with emotions being bad, maybe even morally bad, but that's more a tendency of the nature of human interpretation than formal doctrine.

I would say that those who practice suppressing emotion or denying it are not following the practice properly. I would say that the practice would require being aware of and acknowledging one's emotions, but just not reacting to them, and specifically only when one is meditating. This practice is suppose to cultivate a calmer mind, but this is supposed to be an effect, not an obligation. However, as with pretty much all religions, if you don't exhibit the effects you're suppose to experience or display according to theory, there is a tendency for others to think there is something wrong with you. <-- This is what puts on the pressure. This is what makes adherents feel obligated.

Modern society? It has been the rule in many rural Eastern societies for a couple of thousand years. IOW people living off the land either in hunter or fishing type sustenance groups or farmers. It is meant as a universal cure for the ailment of being human.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume rural life, or "living off the land," is the same as living as primitive man did. Life may be simpler in rural areas of the world, closer to nature so to speak, but modern day life certainly still takes a toll. Are the people of Eastern societies free of tyrannical government? Of media? Of language? Of awareness of the modern state of the world? Of their own culture and social pressures? Of technologies (even if not as advanced as those found in city life)? Language in particular has a very profound effect on the state of mind of the members of this or that community. Remember, language required time to evolve. Man didn't pop onto the scene with a fully developed language. In the beginning, he wasn't much more than an intelligent ape, closer to an animal than human beings today.

I'm also starting to doubt that you understand what I mean by "demythologizing". There is the mythical state of being "enlightened" that Buddhists strive towards, and then there is the natural state that primitive man used to experience for the better part of his life. Even if those living in rural conditions today practice Buddhist techniques like meditation and mindfulness, it's most likely because they too believe that these practices will bring them to the mythical state of enlightenment, not the natural state of primitive man. This is most likely what they've been taught. As a consequence, they are taught that their current state of mind--even if it's relatively peaceful compared to the hectic life and stressful ways of city life, even if it's the same as primitive man--is not good enough, that there is an even more peaceful, enlightened state of mind to be attained by meditation and mindfulness. That is, they are taught the myth of perfect peace, of perfect enlightenment, not the reality of peaceful enough, enlightened enough.

Neolithics very directly accepted his or her desires and passions. Not that you would know, but granted. And we can see this in hunter gatherer societies also that survived up until contact with Europe and anthropologists. The seeing desire as problematic would be alien to them. Like I said, that's an aspect of Buddhist doctrine, not something primative man knew inately. Their religions were often quite expressive and interactions tended to be quite passionate, especially with other tribes or groups.

Again, this is easily explained by methymologizing. I am not saying the natural state of primitive man was without emotion, or expression of emotion; I would think it involved acceptance of emotion rather than the view that certain emotions were unacceptable. And though it may seem counterintuitive, the acceptance of emotion does lead to less emotionality, or a calmer, happier state of mind; it means one doesn't have to feel bad or guilty about feeling or expressing emotion, which would otherwise exacerbate negative emotions.

If you want to criticize Buddhists, this is one point I will agree with you on; the Buddhist ought to meditate on his inner states as well as the outer world--his emotions and thoughts--for those are just as real, and therefore just as subject to awareness, as the state of the world in the here and now. You describe a certain brand of Buddhist who wants to suppress or deny his emotions--I agree that this is unhealthy and is more likely to backfire--but the Buddhist I have in mind is the one who admits and is not deterred about feeling his emotions, but also practices control over his emotional reactions; it's self-control that this Buddhist practices, not denial or cutting himself off from his emotions. <-- The latter leads to less control, the former to more control.

I did, for years. Me too! Good discipline. It did not help me Me neither!, except to the extent that I learned what I do not want and what I do not want to disidentify with. I agree. As I said before, I've got ADD and this works counterproductively with meditation. If I've learned anything, it's that meditation is not the only way. I understand and have sympathy for their fear of emotions, especially the deep, cut off ones that people generally avoid and do not even realize are their. I would guess they noticed these emotions, deep in their, and decided the best thing to do was suppress, disidentify, control emotional and physical expression, and that the full self could not be enlightened, so they labeled certain parts obstacles, not the buddha (though always also the Buddha). I would agree with that assessment if that is indeed what they are doing. But despite my sympathy I don't like that path or set of paths. And they are not honest about what they do. Not unique to Buddhists. Many teachers and masters will say that we should accept our emotions, but they tend not to mean the so called negative ones, and they certainly to not mean expressing them. Observe them. Which is not the same as suppressing them. It's like if you say you accept your kids, but you do not let them make noise or move with passion. It's ain't love, and in the end it ain't compassion.

That depends. Are my children misbehaving? Getting themselves in trouble? What if their passion leads them to want to play in traffic? Am I not accepting my children by holding them back from doing so?

I think a distinction ought to be made between suppressing one's passions and suppressing one's behavior. I agree that suppressing one's passions is not healthy, but we all need to control our behavior, and the more control we have, the more control we have over our lives, which ultimately leads to more happiness and peace.

And just as you think one cannot judge it in the negative if one has actually practiced it, one cannot judge it in the positive either. Absolutely! I do think many people do not want their full emotional presence - I mean just look at how much we distract and medicate our emotions away - and if they choose that path, then they are choosing what they want and that is the right choice for them.

But it's not my.

I'm not really up on Buddhist practices or adherence either, but I do find inspiration in Buddhism. A key factor for me is to not align myself with Buddhism (or any "ism"). So while I will say I am a fan of Buddhism, I will not say I am a Buddhist.

I want my limbic system fully integrated and expressive, not compassionately watched through a telescope while holding a single position for hours, perhaps even having someone hit you with a stick if your back is not straight enough - the for Zen fans. Of course Zen is just one branch and I doubt many do that anymore especially in the West. But really, I like the honesty of that version. That is what is happening inside anyway.

Beyond what Buddhists do and what's going on inside, we can all have our personal opinions of what counts as a "good" way of life or a "bad" way of life. <-- This is typically subjective. Being in touch with all one's emotions and having no qualms with expressing them can be seen as a good thing... or a bad thing if the expression of those emotions is destructive. I'm in agreement with you about the badness of cutting one's self off from one's emotions--and it's no surprise that many Buddhists do this--but I disagree that expressing one's emotions all the time (assuming that means letting one's emotions take control of one's behavior, including self-expression in social situations) is always a good thing. I think the Buddhist who practices control over his behavior (meaning controlling how his emotions determine his behavior and self-expression) is general on the right path.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Gib wrote: Is that what they tell you they're doing? Learning not to express emotion?

Sure, it can get verbalized, always there is vibe, and since I tended to respond to the vibe, I was generally informed that expression of emotions should be dampened. And I am not talking about me want to throw a tantrum in the meditation room.

Finding yourself under social pressure for going against the norm or defying expectations isn't that surprising. That's the human aspect of the Buddhist. It comes with every human institution. It comes even in Christianity, one of the world's most judgemental religions (IMNSHO), despite passages from scripture that prescribe the opposite ("judge not, lest ye be judged"). But I don't think there's anything in Buddhist doctrine that says: thou shalt judge those who express emotion.

Buddhist practice and doctrine disidentify with emotions and cut the emotions off from expression. Thoughts are also disidentified with, but they do not need the same expression when one is in a natural state. It is not just humans being human, this is central to the Buddhist project. If you are expressing emotions, you are seen as not doing what they are doing. And correctly.

And don't get me wrong. I celebrate emotion too. I've just found that certain techniques (some Buddhist, some not) have helped to exercise control over one's mind, which *can* help to control certain emotions.

I don’t need to control my emotions, not anymore. I think the frontal lobes think they understand things they do not, and this leads to the judgments that make the emotions problematic, both in society and families and intrapsychically - and this in turn seems to confirm to the frontal lobes that the amygdala needs chains. Once you get used to expressing them, they are not explosive – unless something very intense is happening - or twisted.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Of course many buddhists just do the disidentification and suppression mainly in meditation, but the goals is to do this all the time. Whose goal? The goal of the practices, the goals of the experienced members of the community, the goal of meditation as expressed by masters.

I've heard Buddhist say the same thing: the goal is to remain in that meditative state all the time. However, this goal is still a choice up to the individual.

Of course. I am not saying they kidnapped me and told me to stop having emotions. I am talking about what they consider necessary and what they consider good. And this is connected to what they consider enlightenment is.

And there will always be group think and conformity in any religion, which means a sharing of similar goals (often with social pressure to boot). Personally, I don't know how anything can get done by remaining in that state all the time, but maybe I'm imagining that state wrong. In any case, gaining practice at something means making it more easy to do all the time, so it wouldn't be surprising if many Buddhists who have gained a ton of practice at meditation can do it easily 90% of the time. And if you can do it easily 90% of the time, why not? I would agree with your sentiments if it came to practitioners who were forcing themselves to do it all the time, and if it's forced, I don't think you're really doing it. It's like faking it, and nothing more than suppressing emotions and thoughts (which I don't think is the same thing as what Buddhists are doing).

It sounds like you are defending something you don’t have much experience with. (I see below that you do. You say you meditated for years despite the ADHD and how this makes it not work. Consider that perhaps you weren’t meditating as Buddhists do, since the ADHD inhibited it. Which sounds all to the good to me.)

Karpel Tunnel wrote:They are attached to not identifying and expressing emotions. Try going in to one of these communities and temples and being a passionate, emotionally expressive person. You will find that they judge and have a dualism at the heart of their supposed non-judgemental acceptance, and it will not be pleasant, even if they behave 'calmly.'

I'm not sure what this has to do with social engagement. Being attached to not identifying and expressing emotions is not the same as being attached to social engagements. And I've met lots of Buddhists who have absolutely no qualms expressing emotion ugh, creepy, and I would say, pathological... so long as it's happy, loving emotions. <-- They don't mind showing these when they engage with people socially.

In the West I see more strongly the happy Buddhist thing. And yes, there we have judgments of some emotions and not others. I don’t really see that as better. If I stifle some of my emotions, the depths of the others are affected. Beyond that the judgments around the so called negative emotions are unfounded. I have sympathy for them. I know one can find confirmations of what the emotions supposedly must be like if they are identified with. But it is old ideas about what must be the case.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I have been to Buddhist organizations all over the West and East, and it's a rule. These guys are not like, say, shamans or druids or pagans, for example.

It's not too surprising that this would be the case. Of course, it is an essential part of Buddhism. I am not expressing surprise, but rather describing what is there. And even though I don't think there's anything in Buddhist doctrine that says one must suppress their emotions or that one must judge those who don't, it's sort of implied in the sense that the Buddhist goal involves detachment from emotions. It's very likely that people will associate that with emotions being bad, maybe even morally bad, but that's more a tendency of the nature of human interpretation than formal doctrine.

Right, it’s not a coincidence. Hell, I can hang out with members of other religions – Hindus, Catholics, for example, and find a much wider range of emotional expression and acceptance of it in others. There are judgments there also, but Buddhism has it really deep.

I would say that those who practice suppressing emotion or denying it are not following the practice properly. That will be news to every single master I met. They often say things about accepting emotions, but if you are expressive, they judge it. They cannot tolerate it. I would say that the practice would require being aware of and acknowledging one's emotions, but just not reacting to them, and specifically only when one is meditating. This practice is suppose to cultivate a calmer mind, but this is supposed to be an effect, not an obligation. However, as with pretty much all religions, if you don't exhibit the effects you're suppose to experience or display according to theory, there is a tendency for others to think there is something wrong with you. <-- This is what puts on the pressure. This is what makes adherents feel obligated.

Honestly Gib, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. I think you have some ideas about Buddhism, perhaps idealize it in certain ways, but suppression of the emotions and their expression is a core part of every Buddhist place I’ve encountered and the master will justify this by referring to scripture. Yes, scripture does not specifically say it, but it does, in fact follow from scripture. It’s not a coincidence.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Modern society? It has been the rule in many rural Eastern societies for a couple of thousand years. IOW people living off the land either in hunter or fishing type sustenance groups or farmers. It is meant as a universal cure for the ailment of being human.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume rural life, or "living off the land," is the same as living as primitive man did.

Woh. I did not say that. I was responding to your statement about modern society.

I'm also starting to doubt that you understand what I mean by "demythologizing". There is the mythical state of being "enlightened" that Buddhists strive towards,

It ain’t no mythical state. They can fucking see it brain scans and eegs and more. Just because I don’t like what they consider enlightenment doesn’t mean I don’t recognize what their years of discipline can create.

You are talking about things you have very little direct experience of, but as if you know what you are talking about. It’s like what you imagine Buddhism is and isn’t and that isn’t very interesting to me. Those guys can do things physically and psychically and neuronally that other people cannot do, and under stress. And they can, yes, live in these states. I am talking about masters here.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Neolithics very directly accepted his or her desires and passions. Not that you would know, but granted. And we can see this in hunter gatherer societies also that survived up until contact with Europe and anthropologists. The seeing desire as problematic would be alien to them. Like I said, that's an aspect of Buddhist doctrine, not something primative man knew inately. Their religions were often quite expressive and interactions tended to be quite passionate, especially with other tribes or groups.

Again, this is easily explained by methymologizing. I am not saying the natural state of primitive man was without emotion, or expression of emotion; I would think it involved acceptance of emotion rather than the view that certain emotions were unacceptable. And though it may seem counterintuitive, the acceptance of emotion does lead to less emotionality, or a calmer, happier state of mind; it means one doesn't have to feel bad or guilty about feeling or expressing emotion, which would otherwise exacerbate negative emotions.

Except they tended to be very expressive of emotions – and we can see this in all contacts with indigenous groups in first contact. They were not like Buddhists at all.

If you want to criticize Buddhists, this is one point I will agree with you on; the Buddhist ought to meditate on his inner states as well as the outer world--his emotions and thoughts--for those are just as real, and therefore just as subject to awareness, as the state of the world in the here and now. You describe a certain brand of Buddhist who wants to suppress or deny his emotions--I agree that this is unhealthy and is more likely to backfire--but the Buddhist I have in mind is the one who admits and is not deterred about feeling his emotions, but also practices control over his emotional reactions; it's self-control that this Buddhist practices, not denial or cutting himself off from his emotions. <-- The latter leads to less control, the former to more control.

If you disidentify with emotions, you are cutting them off. If you do not do this, you are not practicing Buddhism very deeply yet.

. Observe them. Which is not the same as suppressing them

It is not the same thing as biting your tongue or the Protestant stiff way of suppressing emotions, but its actually an even more effective way to suppress emotions, buy cutting them off and atrophying them eventually. If you cut off the expression of emotions and disidentify with them, you are suppression them. Emotions are a bodily process, including expression.

That depends. Are my children misbehaving? Getting themselves in trouble? What if their passion leads them to want to play in traffic? Am I not accepting my children by holding them back from doing so?

It is the rule in Buddhism, so counter examples are missing the point. The kids are always treated in the same way, not just when they are 'bad'. In this analogy.

I think a distinction ought to be made between suppressing one's passions and suppressing one's behavior. emotions are behavior. They are not acts on others, they are expressive behavior and what is felt inside and identified with. Buddhist squeeze a core facet of emotions, which in turn, over time, dulls even the feeling of them I agree that suppressing one's passions is not healthy, but we all need to control our behavior, and the more control we have, the more control we have over our lives, which ultimately leads to more happiness and peace.

I disagree. The more I have identified with my emotions and let them express, the less I find any need or excuse to control my behavior. And this has not led me to hit anyone and my emotional expression includes beyond primal screaming type expression and includes all the emotions, even the ones judged to be negative.


Beyond what Buddhists do and what's going on inside, we can all have our personal opinions of what counts as a "good" way of life or a "bad" way of life. <-- This is typically subjective. Being in touch with all one's emotions and having no qualms with expressing them can be seen as a good thing... or a bad thing if the expression of those emotions is destructive. I'm in agreement with you about the badness of cutting one's self off from one's emotions--and it's no surprise that many Buddhists do this--but I disagree that expressing one's emotions all the time (assuming that means letting one's emotions take control of one's behavior, including self-expression in social situations) is always a good thing. I think the Buddhist who practices control over his behavior (meaning controlling how his emotions determine his behavior and self-expression) is general on the right path.
I don’t generally express my emotions where they will be judged or attacked. By people who feel that everything like that must be suppressed. I don’t do this because the emotions are wrong, but because I don’t need their gloppy judgments and perhaps actions coming at me. IOW my fear of and distaste for the experiences this would lead to - along with practical concerns(like I will rarely yell at someone with a gun, say) - makes me avoid expressing there - though once I get somewhere I can let them rip about that situation, I do.

The Buddhist who does what you say at the end may be doing what he wants, but it is not the right path for me.

I think I am going to let this interchange drop, at least for a while. I guess in part because what you say Buddhism is and should be doesn't match what Buddhists tell me, Buddhists at all levels, but most importantly masters. Now I do not assume that someone running a temple must be right or is really a master. But I experienced universal answers to questions around emotions, universal judgments of them, and judgments then backed up in the context of the Buddha's life, scripture, what they learned via meditation and more. And that is there choice, and I do not want to pull them away from their choice. I am trying to make clear why that is not my choice. And my pulling away from Buddhism is not a mistake because I am confusing fallible human reactions with Buddhism, but rather because of what Buddhism is. I could think that all these people who do identify with Buddhism and some of whom are experts, though fallible, understand Buddhism, or I could choose to take your version, you being another potentially fallible person, in this case not a Buddhist.

[newegg]

okay, bout mindfulness. yeah its like a drug or medicine. its kind of a shitty drug honestly. Fuckers ban weed so people do mindfulness shit to cope with their PTSD and fucked up traumatic memories.

Do i think mindfulness is effective? Only works for certain people. If you have dysphoria or dissociation it may mess up your mind worse. Fuckers need to legalize weed and shit. Weed is the only real cure for depression or PTSD. Without weed i am the most miserable and antisocial motherfucker in town.

Now, cuckservatives will come on and tell me, the reason I am so mentally fucked up is because of weed. Nope. I hardly ever smoke the stuff. I was mentally fucked up to begin with. This world traumatizes you. Lots of shitty people in the planet.

And yeah, not a fan of pansy passivity. Its like u smoke a blunt. U envision the utopia. You go to bed. Next morning, u wake the fuck up and build the fucking utopia. If you cant build it you find someone who can. Not a fan of pansy Passifist buddha bullshit of doing nothing. That is not wisdom. Its an excuse for lazy fuckers to not feel bad about themselves.

[newegg]

So, the facts. Fact is, did weed one time and OBE'd that time. Only happened for half a second. My consciousness field expanded beyond my physical brain I saw my own ears for a brief moment.

You have to analyze it like this. Why do you see the world in a visual sense? What is doing the seeing? Its just a web of nuerons.

Id like to do a longer OBE but because weed is banned, I cant. These puritan christian motherfuckers are all anti-science and shit. They want to ban weed and psychadelic drugs so i cant do science. I want to study my own mind and brain and be a test subject of my own experimination. I need a longer OBE so i can prove OBEs once and for all, dont need these stupid christian puritan cuck motherfuckers to ruin it for me.

[Fixed Cross]

the Buddhist ought to meditate on his inner states as well as the outer world--his emotions and thoughts--for those are just as real,

But Gib, isn't it at the essence of Buddhism that neither of these things are real?

[gib]

But Gib, isn't it at the essence of Buddhism that neither of these things are real?

Yes it is, which is probably why most Buddhists don't bother looking within. The goal is to wipe away illusion and to maintain awareness of reality. I'm not a Buddhist though. I don't think of thoughts and emotions as illusions. They contribute to reality just as much as our perceptions of the outer world and therefore deserve attention and focus as much as the outer world. The trick, for me at least, is to not let your thoughts and emotions run away with you. You still want to satisfy your emotions, just as a parent might want to satisfy a child's wishes, but he doesn't do so by taking his instructions from the child.

On this point, I've always found it a bit confusing how a Buddhist can say that thought and emotion are illusory and yet enlightenment is the realization that all is consciousness? Do they mean consciousness without thought and emotion? If thought and emotion are illusory, are they artifacts of mind but not consciousness (as in, they are mental but do not count as awareness of reality)? Not sure how that one works.

Karpel... it's probably best that you take a break from this thread as I don't think I can keep up either (too busy). Let's just chock it up to: we are failing to understand each other.

[Fixed Cross]

But Gib, isn't it at the essence of Buddhism that neither of these things are real?

Yes it is, which is probably why most Buddhists don't bother looking within. The goal is to wipe away illusion and to maintain awareness of reality.

Traditionally and dogmatically it is more dual than that. Reality appears as soon as the emotions and the mind have been cleansed. The doors of perception, or the veils of Maya.

What these masters mean with cleansing the mind is to eliminate all that is particular from it, as particularity gives difference, which gives tension, and doubt, The same goes for emotions. The result of penetrating the veil of Maya is very real. "The void", the undifferentiated heart-mind, where emotion and thought don't exist as separate realms, is empty of thingness and only consists of presence.

The result is extreme bliss, better than any high you'll get from drugs. Maybe not if you like it warped, but the pleasure is infinite.

I'm not a Buddhist though. I don't think of thoughts and emotions as illusions. They contribute to reality just as much as our perceptions of the outer world and therefore deserve attention and focus as much as the outer world. The trick, for me at least, is to not let your thoughts and emotions run away with you. You still want to satisfy your emotions, just as a parent might want to satisfy a child's wishes, but he doesn't do so by taking his instructions from the child.

Neither is the Buddhist mindset interested in the outer world - they see all physical manifestation as Maya. They are interested in what its beyond, the experience of the pure principle.

On this point, I've always found it a bit confusing how a Buddhist can say that thought and emotion are illusory and yet enlightenment is the realization that all is consciousness? Do they mean consciousness without thought and emotion? If thought and emotion are illusory, are they artifacts of mind but not consciousness (as in, they are mental but do not count as awareness of reality)? Not sure how that one works.

Yes, thought and emotion both particularize, so they are seen as limiting consciousness of that which is always present everywhere, underneath all differences.

[Fixed Cross]

Existence is moss in the cracks of no-thingness. But what beautiful moss! Phosphorescent and soft to the touch, a perfect place for a dream to begin.

[gib]

Traditionally and dogmatically it is more dual than that. Reality appears as soon as the emotions and the mind have been cleansed. The doors of perception, or the veils of Maya.

What these masters mean with cleansing the mind is to eliminate all that is particular from it, as particularity gives difference, which gives tension, and doubt, The same goes for emotions. The result of penetrating the veil of Maya is very real. "The void", the undifferentiated heart-mind, where emotion and thought don't exist as separate realms, is empty of thingness and only consists of presence.

The result is extreme bliss, better than any high you'll get from drugs. Maybe not if you like it warped, but the pleasure is infinite.

...

Neither is the Buddhist mindset interested in the outer world - they see all physical manifestation as Maya. They are interested in what its beyond, the experience of the pure principle.

...

Yes, thought and emotion both particularize, so they are seen as limiting consciousness of that which is always present everywhere, underneath all differences.

I don't understand. Is the undifferentiated simply a melding of all emotion, thought, sensation, and anything that can be beheld by awareness? Is it something beyond even all that?

When I would meditate, I would understand the technique to be the avoidance of distraction by thought and emotion, to focus my attention on the here and now, on my current surroundings. That, for me, meant focusing on what I could see, hear, feel, etc. in the moment, what was before me, what surrounded me. This was equivalent, as far as I was concerned, with focusing on my sensory experiences.

But if the point is to focus on something beyond this--as though one was to focus on pure awareness itself without focusing on one's surroundings or what one was sensing in the moment, then this is a vacuous concept to me. What is "pure awareness" such that I may focus on it? What is it to "just be aware" if I don't know what I'm supposed to be aware of? It's almost like saying: focus on the unfocusable.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I don't understand. Is the undifferentiated simply a melding of all emotion, thought, sensation, and anything that can be beheld by awareness? Is it something beyond even all that?

When I would meditate, I would understand the technique to be the avoidance of distraction by thought and emotion, to focus my attention on the here and now, on my current surroundings. That, for me, meant focusing on what I could see, hear, feel, etc. in the moment, what was before me, what surrounded me. This was equivalent, as far as I was concerned, with focusing on my sensory experiences.

Yes, thought and emotion both particularize, so they are seen as limiting consciousness of that which is always present everywhere, underneath all differences.

There are meditations where one focuses on sensory input, but I would say most practices focus on, yes, the here and now, but not away from thoughts and emotions, rather on anything sensory, thinking related, emotional. There would be no prioritizing of sensory over thoughts and emotions. They are all just considered phenomena.[/quote]

But if the point is to focus on something beyond this--as though one was to focus on pure awareness itself without focusing on one's surroundings or what one was sensing in the moment, then this is a vacuous concept to me.

Of course it is. You have to have meditated for a long time to have that experience. I wouldn't say beyond, I would say underlying.

[Fixed Cross]

Traditionally and dogmatically it is more dual than that. Reality appears as soon as the emotions and the mind have been cleansed. The doors of perception, or the veils of Maya.

What these masters mean with cleansing the mind is to eliminate all that is particular from it, as particularity gives difference, which gives tension, and doubt, The same goes for emotions. The result of penetrating the veil of Maya is very real. "The void", the undifferentiated heart-mind, where emotion and thought don't exist as separate realms, is empty of thingness and only consists of presence.

The result is extreme bliss, better than any high you'll get from drugs. Maybe not if you like it warped, but the pleasure is infinite.

...

Neither is the Buddhist mindset interested in the outer world - they see all physical manifestation as Maya. They are interested in what its beyond, the experience of the pure principle.

...

Yes, thought and emotion both particularize, so they are seen as limiting consciousness of that which is always present everywhere, underneath all differences.

I don't understand. Is the undifferentiated simply a melding of all emotion, thought, sensation, and anything that can be beheld by awareness? Is it something beyond even all that?

When I would meditate, I would understand the technique to be the avoidance of distraction by thought and emotion, to focus my attention on the here and now, on my current surroundings. That, for me, meant focusing on what I could see, hear, feel, etc. in the moment, what was before me, what surrounded me. This was equivalent, as far as I was concerned, with focusing on my sensory experiences.

But if the point is to focus on something beyond this--as though one was to focus on pure awareness itself without focusing on one's surroundings or what one was sensing in the moment, then this is a vacuous concept to me. What is "pure awareness" such that I may focus on it? What is it to "just be aware" if I don't know what I'm supposed to be aware of? It's almost like saying: focus on the unfocusable.

It sounds like you never read any Buddhist literature. What I'm saying is like "in basketball you need to put the ball in the basket" but for Buddhism.
It isn't anything original.

But yeah it is certainly damn hard. As I said it would take me hours of preparation each day. As it does all Buddhist monks.

Yoga is the discipline of soothing the body so that the mind can observe itself, not distracted by objects. It exists only to prepare for the type of meditation I describe.

[gib]

It sounds like you never read any Buddhist literature. What I'm saying is like "in basketball you need to put the ball in the basket" but for Buddhism.
It isn't anything original.

That doesn't help me.

But yeah it is certainly damn hard. As I said it would take me hours of preparation each day. As it does all Buddhist monks.

Yoga is the discipline of soothing the body so that the mind can observe itself, not distracted by objects. It exists only to prepare for the type of meditation I describe.

All right, hope that works out for you. I will just continue to not understand (I feel that's more honest at least).

[Fixed Cross]

Its a lot of work. At least some months of full time discipline are required to even get a glimpse.

I recommend reading a (any) book by either a Chinese or an Indian source on this.
What Im relating is in no way controversial, or I think difficult to understand, I suspect you are merely new to it and like to pretend that Im being weird - I get that a lot. I just put in a lot more work in what I write about than most folks.

And this pays off. I actually know exactly what Im talking about most of the time and Im fairly unique in this.

[Fixed Cross]

Don't mean to be.... mean... its just you're missing out if you don't approach Buddhism as a technical discipline.

This stuff is all related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPl8JNxSYIY

[Fixed Cross]

The most comprehensive and lasting of such a transcendent state of no-mind was called Nirvana.
Not Nevermind but being nor non-being.

[Fixed Cross]

For al intents and purposes here, Nirvana can be equated with Samadhi.
The most powerful yogi of the 20th century dedicated the following words to it:


Samadhi
by Paramahansa Yogananda

Vanished the veils of light and shade,
Lifted every vapor of sorrow,
Sailed away all dawns of fleeting joy,
Gone the dim sensory mirage.
Love, hate, health, disease, life, death,
Perished these false shadows on the screen of duality.
Waves of laughter, scyllas of sarcasm, melancholic whirlpools,
Melting in the vast sea of bliss.
The storm of maya stilled
By magic wand of intuition deep.
The universe, forgotten dream, subconsciously lurks,
Ready to invade my newly wakened memory divine.
I live without the cosmic shadow,
But it is not, bereft of me;
As the sea exists without the waves,
But they breathe not without the sea.
Dreams, wakings, states of deep turiya, sleep;
Present, past, future, no more for me,
But ever-present, all-flowing I, I, everywhere.
Planets, stars, stardust, earth,
Volcanic bursts of doomsday cataclysms,
Creation’s molding furnace,
Glaciers of silent x-rays, burning electron floods,
Thoughts of all men, past, present, to come,
Every blade of grass, myself, mankind,
Each particle of universal dust,
Anger, greed, good, bad, salvation, lust,
I swallowed, transmuted all
Into a vast ocean of blood of my own one Being!
Smoldering joy, oft-puffed by meditation,
Blinding my tearful eyes,
Burst into immortal flames of bliss,
Consumed my tears, my frame, my all.
Thou art I, I am Thou,
Knowing, Knower, Known, as One!
Tranquilled, unbroken thrill, eternally living, ever new peace!
Enjoyable beyond imagination of expectancy, samadhi bliss!
Not a mental chloroform
Or unconscious state without wilful return,
Samadhi but extends my conscious realm
Beyond limits of the mortal frame
To farthest boundary of eternity
Where I, the Cosmic Sea,
Watch the little ego floating in me.
The sparrow, each grain of sand, fall not without my sight.
All space like an iceberg floats within my mental sea.
Colossal Container, I, of all things made.
By deeper, longer, thirsty, guru-given meditation
Comes this celestial samadhi.
Mobile murmurs of atoms are heard,
The dark earth, mountains, vales, lo! molten liquid!
Flowing seas change into vapors of nebulae!
Aum blows upon vapors, opening wondrously their veils,
Oceans stand revealed, shining electrons,
Till, at last sound of the cosmic drum,**
Vanish the grosser lights into eternal rays
Of all-pervading bliss.
From joy I came, for joy I live, in sacred joy I melt.
Ocean of mind, I drink all Creation’s waves.
Four veils of solid, liquid, vapor, light,
Lift aright.
Myself, in everything, enters the Great Myself.
Gone forever, fitful, flickering shadows of mortal memory.
Spotless is my mental sky, below, ahead, and high above.
Eternity and I, one united ray.
A tiny bubble of laughter, I
Am become the Sea of Mirth Itself.

[gib]

FC,

Thanks for the plethora of information!

Don't be offended if I say this is difficult to understand. I would think it's supposed to be difficult. You're talking about something that is beyond perception and experience (or an amalgamation of all perception and experience... still not sure which it is)--like Kant's ding an sich--it's almost incomprehensible by definition. If you understand it, that's something to be proud of.

I have not. And you're right, I have not read up on a lot of Buddhist literature (well, I have, but that was years, and years, and years ago, and I'm sure my memory is distorted).

I think I'll wait 'til next life before dedicating myself to as intensive a discipline as you describe. In this life, I'm all used up. All the forces of this life have a piece of me... using me like a cheep whore ... and I have no time to be enlightened.

[Fixed Cross]

FC,

Thanks for the plethora of information!

Don't be offended if I say this is difficult to understand. I would think it's supposed to be difficult. You're talking about something that is beyond perception and experience (or an amalgamation of all perception and experience... still not sure which it is)--like Kant's ding an sich--it's almost incomprehensible by definition. If you understand it, that's something to be proud of.

I have not. And you're right, I have not read up on a lot of Buddhist literature (well, I have, but that was years, and years, and years ago, and I'm sure my memory is distorted).

I think I'll wait 'til next life before dedicating myself to as intensive a discipline as you describe. In this life, I'm all used up. All the forces of this life have a piece of me... using me like a cheep whore ... and I have no time to be enlightened.

Haha,
well youre clearly not living in darkness.

Cheers gib, appreciated.