<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0"> <channel> <title>The Dharma Battleground (DhB)</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_category?p_l_id=&amp;mbCategoryId=77848</link> <description>Here is where high controversy and heated debate should happen with all the compassion, listening, clarification, passion for the truth and intelligence you can muster.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:35:54 GMT</pubDate> <dc:date>2014-10-19T00:35:54Z</dc:date> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5600030</link> <description>Wu wei indeed! &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/big_grin.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:56:09 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5600030</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-06T21:56:09Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599721</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Hey Psi,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We made a long thread and gave eachother a lot to think about.  My only interest in the debate has been to see if the differences really are different.  I&amp;#039;m actually not sure, and that&amp;#039;s a good place to be.  I hope you don&amp;#039;t &amp;#034;leave me alone&amp;#034; in the future - I think you have some good stuff to say.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If we end up in the same place and it&amp;#039;s where we both wanted to be - or if we end up in different places, and that&amp;#039;s where we both wanted to be - we still both get to win, eh? &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/closed_eyes.gif" &gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hey Not Tao,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Everthing is fine, you have my respect, it&amp;#039;s just that it seems wiser if I disengage from the AF commentary, I am sure Richard would appreciate me not poking out AF&amp;#039;s flaws, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings, as much as I would appreciate his website not denigrating the rest of humanities religions and spiritual practices.  So, I will focus back to what is wholesome and productive from personal experience.  Until your post I had not even looked at AF, and on the website I have found some things I agree with and some things I disagree with.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Wu Wei&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi</description> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:42:23 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599721</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-06T12:42:23Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599621</link> <description>Hey Psi,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We made a long thread and gave eachother a lot to think about.  My only interest in the debate has been to see if the differences really are different.  I&amp;#039;m actually not sure, and that&amp;#039;s a good place to be.  I hope you don&amp;#039;t &amp;#034;leave me alone&amp;#034; in the future - I think you have some good stuff to say.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If we end up in the same place and it&amp;#039;s where we both wanted to be - or if we end up in different places, and that&amp;#039;s where we both wanted to be - we still both get to win, eh? &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/closed_eyes.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:24:50 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599621</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-06T09:24:50Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599031</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Teague:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;&amp;#40;D Z&amp;#41; Dhru Val:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when a DhO member (Tarin) got 4th path, and then subsequently become the first person on the site to achieve AF (a claim that he later &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;actualfreedom&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;announcement&amp;#x2e;htm&amp;#x23;Addendum6"&gt;redacted for political reasons&lt;/a&gt;), it was assumed that AF represented a further development over ALL enlightenment tradtions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dang, I just read the anouncements in that link.  The AFT really has a low opinion of this &amp;#034;Buddhistic forum.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just a simple observation.  Not wanting to start another debate.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well, after having read the above posted link, and the first post of this link here, discussing AF seems to be a dead end road, and time is short.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;2733454&amp;#x23;_19_message_2733454"&gt;www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2733454#_19_message_2733454&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;The subject of Actual Freedom  is going to be abandoned, it is only bringing about disagreements and misunderstandings, and thus is non-fruitful.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s been real, and it&amp;#039;s been fun.  &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/smile.gif" &gt;  Just think it is wise for me to stick with what I know works and leave others alone to do what they know works.  There may be common ground, but so what?  Who needs the politics?  Perhaps I should start a practice log and get a little more serious, it may hold myself more accountable to practicing.  At least I learned some new words for Scrabble..., thanks to Richard, he&amp;#039;s quite the vocabulist.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, Peace to all!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;P.S.  If my mind changes, woe to us all....</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:42:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599031</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T18:42:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598688</link> <description>Okay , I read what Richard said about Buddhism and he just doesn&amp;#039;t understand much, he says he does, but he doesn&amp;#039;t.  Which is fine, I am just seeking truth, and : &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Why do I get invovled with these discussions about actualism , etc?  Well, why does Richard vent out a bunch of ill conceived thoughts about Buddhism, why does he invite responses?  This is simple cause and effect, if he did not write about how wrong something is, and base it upon misunderstandings, in my opinion, then why wouldn&amp;#039;t someone be able to discuss the subjects that Actualism brings up?  It is not  adefense, or a defense mechanism, those are instinctive reactions, these are logical discussions about statements being made on the Actual Freedom website about Buddha and the teachings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Because, being a seeker of the truth, that requires investigation, and when investigation exposes something as non-truthful it should be either taken back or corrected.  There are differences in opinions and facts, which has been clarified on the Actualist website, yet there is the spouting of misunderstandings and opinions being presented as facts, and in a logical sounding manner.  But, just because something sounds logical does not mean it is logical, especially when investigated.  So, I guess, because I still have clinging, clinging to what is right and truth, it burns my butt that someone can just say a bunch of stuff as the truth when it is obviously not the case, to me anyway.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For example:&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p style="text-align: justify"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #6a0000"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Times&amp;#x20;New&amp;#x20;Roman"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;Richard: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;span style="color: #aa0000"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p style="text-align: justify"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Times&amp;#x20;New&amp;#x20;Roman"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;The actualist method is a far cry from the Buddhist carefully cultivated ‘mindfulness’ ... the practice of ‘mindfulness’ is a further withdrawal from this actual world than what ‘normal’ people currently experience in the illusionary ‘reality’ of their ‘real world’. All Buddhists (just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) do not want to be here &amp;#x2013; now &amp;#x2013; as this flesh and blood form, walking and talking and eating and drinking and urinating and defecating and being the universes’ experience of its own infinitude as a reflective and sensate human being. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&amp;#034;All Buddhist do not want to be here&amp;#034;  Huh?  Why would someone say that?  Where would they formulate an opinion as such, and why present the opinion as a fact?  Did he even understand the Satipatthana Sutta as a  novice? It is said he did, I think, but it seems not.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mindfulness is a further withdrawal from the actual world?  What? , that is foolish, (in my opinion)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Richard:&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #6a0000"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Times&amp;#x20;New&amp;#x20;Roman"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;Mr. Gotama the Sakyan should not have dawdled, tarried ... because there has been untold suffering since then that has been all unnecessary. Wars, rapes, murders, tortures, corruption ... the list is endless. If he had gone all the way there would probably be peace on earth by now. That was two and a half thousand years ago, remember. Plenty of time for everyone to become free.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, he is playing the blame game?  On the Buddha?  This is just nonsense talk, in my opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyway, the reason for discussing this is to show another way of looking at Actual Freedom, it seems that ot is spreading some pretty far out un-justifiable opinions, and passing them off as facts.  To me this is wrong speech, and as shown has repercussions, everyone can be held accountable for their speech and actions, myself included.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, to be proactive, I am not a supporter of dogmatism, and know the practice of rites and rituals  for what they are, but am a supporter of Investigation into reality, no matter where it leads.  It is what it is.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, please, please, do not take any of this personally, that is not the intention, but the intention is to examine statements that are held out for public view and to see how well it holds up to reality, not blaming anyone, just flaggin&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Perhaps one can just focus on the methods and drop the propaganda, but for me , it goes hand in hand.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, I must reflect upon my own consciousness, Is it dogmatic? Is it untruthful? Am I hardheaded or open-minded? If I disagree with something is it okay to express this?  Why is this sometimes seen as an attack rather than as a discussion?  This is a discussion board, right?  More rhetorical questions....&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The buddhist link on AF&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;actualfreedom&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;library&amp;#x2f;topics&amp;#x2f;buddhism&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/buddhism.htm&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 16:51:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598688</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T16:51:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598649</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;&amp;#40;D Z&amp;#41; Dhru Val:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when a DhO member (Tarin) got 4th path, and then subsequently become the first person on the site to achieve AF (a claim that he later &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;actualfreedom&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;announcement&amp;#x2e;htm&amp;#x23;Addendum6"&gt;redacted for political reasons&lt;/a&gt;), it was assumed that AF represented a further development over ALL enlightenment tradtions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dang, I just read the anouncements in that link.  The AFT really has a low opinion of this &amp;#034;Buddhistic forum.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just a simple observation.  Not wanting to start another debate.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:23:19 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598649</guid> <dc:creator>Teague</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T15:23:19Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598630</link> <description>When any of us start a particular path, I don&amp;#039;t think we can really understand the end state of the practice until we actually experience it.  It&amp;#039;s like we&amp;#039;re reading a menu, and think, &amp;#034;mmm, that sounds good,&amp;#034; but we haven&amp;#039;t tasted it yet.  We might even get an appetizer before the main course arrives, such as high equanimity or a PCE, but this doesn&amp;#039;t satisfy our hunger.  To continue this metaphor, the ingrediants of both Buddhism (when it comes to the practical aspects) and Actualism seem good to me, but I&amp;#039;ve already placed my order for the Buddhist dish.  That doesn&amp;#039;t mean I won&amp;#039;t want to sample Actualism down the road.  Reading Dan&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;experiments in acutalism&amp;#034; essay is a convincing testimonial from someone who has sampled both dishes and has deemed them complimentary to each other.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the Goenka courses, he gives the example of someone who sets out to dig a well.  He picks a spots and starts digging, but then someone tells him, &amp;#034;no, no, over there water is better.&amp;#034; and so he starts digging there.  But if you dig ten feet here and ten feet there and never stick with a spot, then you&amp;#039;ll never reach water.  So that&amp;#039;s what I&amp;#039;m doing: digging my well.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I still haven&amp;#039;t been convinced that the two practices are that different from each other.  I think the skills one learns doing one would help with the other, such as the ability to investigate our experience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-T</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 14:42:35 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598630</guid> <dc:creator>Teague</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T14:42:35Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598620</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Richard simply isn&amp;#039;t talking about the pragmatic dharma version of enlightenment - he&amp;#039;s talking about being-consiousness-bliss, which is actually a more traditional use of the word &amp;#034;enlightenment.&amp;#034;  Buddhists usually use the word &amp;#034;awakening&amp;#034; anyway, so there isn&amp;#039;t really a conflict.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes, I would agree. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Part of the confusion is that in earlier days of DhO people assumed that there was only one enlightnemnet, and that the end result of Vipassana / noting was the end of all traditions (I think this idea might be from the MCTB ). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when a DhO member (Tarin) got 4th path, and then subsequently become the first person on the site to achieve AF (a claim that he later &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;actualfreedom&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;announcement&amp;#x2e;htm&amp;#x23;Addendum6"&gt;redacted for political reasons&lt;/a&gt;), it was assumed that AF represented a further development over ALL enlightenment tradtions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Further adding to the confusion, Tarin and others didn&amp;#039;t make a distinction between Richards ideas of enligthenment, based on a True Self  / Heart opening, type enlightenment and MCTB 4th path.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;If you reguard &amp;#034;equanimity&amp;#034; to be emotionlessness, think of the progression of the jhanas as the result of felicity and letting go of control rather than concentration, and see the &amp;#034;self&amp;#034; as the emotions/ego, then buddhism is identical to Actualism.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;cc&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Actualism and buddhism differ in &amp;#039;view&amp;#039;, and as result the realization as well. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Buddhism is very broad set of different traditions. But it tends to discusses self  and phenomenon in terms of a non-affirming negation. Ultimate reality is the unfindability of an ultimate reality. No self is the unfindability of a self. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Actualism uses worlds like the self goes extinct. The actual world is what is ultimately here and true. The &amp;#039;real&amp;#039; world is false and covered with a layer of delusion.&lt;br /&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 14:29:55 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598620</guid> <dc:creator>(D Z) Dhru Val</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T14:29:55Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: 180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598543</link> <description>Richard simply isn&amp;#039;t talking about the pragmatic dharma version of enlightenment - he&amp;#039;s talking about being-consiousness-bliss, which is actually a more traditional use of the word &amp;#034;enlightenment.&amp;#034;  Buddhists usually use the word &amp;#034;awakening&amp;#034; anyway, so there isn&amp;#039;t really a conflict.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Richard has a section on buddhism, but you probably won&amp;#039;t find it to match your version of buddhism - he generally focuses on traditional religious practices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe something to consider is that pragmatic dharma is pretty different from what 99% of the world&amp;#039;s buddhists would identify with, so any comments Richard might have made about buddhism can be disreguarded by pragmatic dharma practitioners.  He&amp;#039;s always fairly clear about how he&amp;#039;s representing a word - even that chart has a definition on it - so if it&amp;#039;s obvious he&amp;#039;s not talking about your definition, there&amp;#039;s no reason to take offense (or, if not offense, whatever else might cause unpleasantness).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Is there a reason this particular thing has captured your attention so definitively?  It really isn&amp;#039;t central to the method that you agree with everything Richard says.  If it seems like your practice is identical, or only 10 degrees different then that&amp;#039;s for you to decide.  Maybe we can compare results as time goes by and see if there are any genuine differences there.  The main difference in the other thread that I&amp;#039;ve noticed is that Actualists are aiming for an emotionless state and Buddhists aren&amp;#039;t.  You also said that bare awareness seemed to be emotionless for you when you were practicing it, though.  Maybe your idea of buddhist practice really is identical to actualism.  Maybe you do some things different, and you find those things to be vital to your practice.  If it makes you feel better, Actualism isn&amp;#039;t all that different from my previous conception of buddhism.  Coming to this forum changed my conception of buddhism into something I didn&amp;#039;t like as much, so I switched definitions.  I don&amp;#039;t think my practice itself has changed much over time though.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you reguard &amp;#034;equanimity&amp;#034; to be emotionlessness, think of the progression of the jhanas as the result of felicity and letting go of control rather than concentration, and see the &amp;#034;self&amp;#034; as the emotions/ego, then buddhism is identical to Actualism.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 11:11:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598543</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T11:11:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>180 degrees opposite</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598486</link> <description>As seen in the link below, the 180 degrees opposite diagram, does not apply to Buddhism, Taoism (as I understand it), Non-duality, and cognitive behavioral neuroscience, energy work , and certainly can in no way apply to the Insight Path, the chart isn&amp;#039;t even close on the left path to describing any one of the above paths.  The chart certainly does not break down all paths of both open handed teachings and occult teachings, so indeed one can not claim that Actualism is 180 degrees opposite of all paths..  Surely, this was just a mis-conception.  So, in light of this indisputable fact, maybe we can communicate more openly without at least this one misconception.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can explain further is this isn&amp;#039;t self-evidently clear.&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;actualfreedom&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;library&amp;#x2f;topics&amp;#x2f;180-degrees&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/180-degrees.htm&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 06:49:42 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5598486</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T06:49:42Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592974</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not Tao said: &amp;#034;In a nutshell, I think Buddhism fails to address the idea of inhibitions.  By creating a system of strict morality, you end up avoiding the deep emotional issues, like lust and hatred, by suppressing them.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Nikāyas fully address inhibitions precisely through a strict moral code (&lt;em&gt;for idiots&lt;/em&gt;, the primary aim of Dhamma is not petty morality), and gives the aspirant the appropriate analysis of such through contemplation of the rise and fall of &lt;em&gt;nīvaraṇā&lt;/em&gt;.   &lt;br /&gt; &lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not Tao said: &amp;#034;There are many passages right in the pali cannon that encourage the suppression of thought.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Yes, when such suppression is skilful.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not Tao said: &amp;#034;I&amp;#039;ve found that direct study of these deep emotional issues, without the burden of seeing them as incorrect or wrong, has allowed me to come to a more complete solution how to live with them and diffuse them.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Again, what is ‘incorrect or wrong’ is the take of petty morality, whereas ‘direct study’ is addressed fully with analysis of the &lt;em&gt;nīvaraṇā, saṃyojana&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;kilesa&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;anusaya&lt;/em&gt; etc.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not Tao said: &amp;#034;Sex, especially, is just patently ignored by Buddhism, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest craving we encounter.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;How could you have missed &lt;em&gt;kāma&lt;/em&gt;, which comes up 1634 times &amp;amp; &lt;em&gt;rāga&lt;/em&gt; which comes up 1242 times in suttanta?&lt;br /&gt; &lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not Tao said: &amp;#034;Further, the pragmatic dharma scene is too focused on meditation as an all in one solution.  Not much else is even discussed.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;You are surly joking here.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not Tao said: &amp;#034;I&amp;#039;m starting to see these days that, if a person is going to meditate at all, they should do it only after resolving most of their emotional issues, otherwise the increased concentration can be very dangerous to mental stability.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;But this is precisely where &lt;em&gt;contemplative&lt;/em&gt; morality comes in.  &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;#034;Idha bhikkhave vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja vihārati.&amp;#034;&lt;/em&gt; (DN 22 Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Here monks, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful phenomena, a monk enters and remains in the first jhāna, which includes directed thought and evaluation, as well as joy and pleasure born of seclusion.&amp;#034;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt; &lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not Tao said: &amp;#034;The reason the dark night is seens as such a standard part of the path is because people see meditation as the solution to emotional problems.  Just grit your teeth and do it, right?  I don&amp;#039;t think the Buddha talked about it this way.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;What is this ‘dark night’ BS?&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Best wishes,&lt;br /&gt;Nāgariko</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:32:28 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592974</guid> <dc:creator>Nāgariko Bhikkhu</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T17:32:28Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587846</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Droll Dedekind:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Like many around here, I don&amp;#039;t feel the need to follow Buddha&amp;#039;s teachings to a tee. All of Buddha&amp;#039;s supplementary teachings have been significantly improved upon. I&amp;#039;m satisfied with Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though if I had to choose one aspect I would agree that Buddha&amp;#039;s attitude toward sex is the worst part of his teachings. I also agree with another poster that said the Tantrics have a lot to say about sexuality and emotion. Though, the Tantrics have always constituted a minority of practitioners, and Tantric practices are hardly ever discussed on the DhO.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sexuality is central to psychology and spirituality. That sex could ever be ignored or considered secondary in matters of liberation amazes me. I strongly suspect that the emotional well-being many DhOers seem to be seeking in AF would better be sought in restoring their own natural sexuality via their bodies. I find the work of Reich, Lowen, Pierrakos, and Hyatt useful in this regard.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Yeah, well Buddha didn&amp;#039;t teach about sexual energies and the spiritual aspects thereof, he taught cessation of suffering.  All I really know is buddha said to undertake the training not to get involved in sexual mis-conduct.  Then there is the Monk rules, but hey, maybe that is just rites and rituals, I don&amp;#039;t believe every thing I read, and most don&amp;#039;t, we investigate to see if it is true or not.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So Investigation is the key.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And if one wants to learn other subjects other that what the Buddha taught, I am all for it, The Buddha didn&amp;#039;t teach Evolutionary Biology, or Quantum Physics, History, Art, Music, Taoist Energy Practices, Arousing Kundalini , or whatever.  So yeah,  the Buddha fell short on teaching things he didn&amp;#039;t teach.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I just don&amp;#039;t worry about the sex thing, it is a part of human nature, a natural function, maybe his wife wouldn&amp;#039;t let him talk about it....&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe I just don&amp;#039;t know...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi</description> <pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2014 05:25:58 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587846</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-21T05:25:58Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587810</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Hi Nicky,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You don&amp;#039;t need to give up much of anything to practice jhana meditation. In fact, removing inhibitions is probably the easiest way to fuel concentration practice. I think even mass murderers could do jhana. So to say monks are giving up sex to do jhana doen&amp;#039;t really add up. That&amp;#039;s like saying I will give up eating pizza because I want to eat ice cream. I&amp;#039;m perfectly capable of eating both - even at the same time. They go well together too!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dumping inhibitions hasn&amp;#039;t led to any suffering on my part. It&amp;#039;s actually improved my life dramatically in a short period of time. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/closed_eyes.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The jhana I am referring to is obviously not the &amp;#039;jhana&amp;#039; you are imagining. The jhana I am referring to is the jhana of the Buddha, which, when reached, there is no longer any interest in sensual or sexual pleasures. To quote:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;~~&amp;#034;I myself, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened bodhisatta, saw as it actually was with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair &amp;amp; greater drawbacks, but &lt;strong&gt;as long as I had not attained a rapture &amp;amp; pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, I did not claim that I could not be tempted by sensuality&lt;/strong&gt;. But when I saw as it actually was with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, &amp;amp; greater drawbacks, and I had attained a rapture &amp;amp; pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, that was when I claimed that I could not be tempted by sensuality.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;~~&amp;#039;Now, I &amp;#x2014; without moving my body, without uttering a word &amp;#x2014; can dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night... for two days &amp;amp; nights... for three... four... five... six... seven days &amp;amp; nights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.014.than.html&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Many salespersons are selling jhana but when you can sit without moving with unalloyed pleasure for at least a day &amp;amp; a night and when your mind has zero interest in sexual &amp;amp; sensual pleasures due to attaining a far greater pleasure, then you have the jhana described by the Buddha. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for your dumping inhibitions, this sounds like some kind of psychotherapeutic matter arising from some repressed or strict childhood. Although this is certainly a step in the right direction &amp;amp; I am very happy to read this, it is unrelated to Buddhist freedom. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Take care. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/girl.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2014 03:42:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587810</guid> <dc:creator>Nicky</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-21T03:42:43Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587484</link> <description>In case anyone wants some source materials on Tantra. The following are some translations of root tantras, along with their commentaries, there is also hagiographic book on the lives of the 84 Mahasiddhas, as well as a translation of Tsongkhapa&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;A Brilliant Lamp To Illuminate The Five Stages&amp;#034;:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dropbox&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;s&amp;#x2f;kydwa572smhsiwy&amp;#x2f;David-L-Snellgrove-The-Hevajra-Tantra&amp;#x2e;pdf&amp;#x3f;dl&amp;#x3d;0"&gt;https://www.dropbox.com/s/kydwa572smhsiwy/David-L-Snellgrove-The-Hevajra-Tantra.pdf?dl=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dropbox&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;s&amp;#x2f;1tev66n2ad2l6yh&amp;#x2f;David-Barton-Gray-The-Cakrasamvara-Tantra&amp;#x2e;pdf&amp;#x3f;dl&amp;#x3d;0"&gt;https://www.dropbox.com/s/1tev66n2ad2l6yh/David-Barton-Gray-The-Cakrasamvara-Tantra.pdf?dl=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dropbox&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;s&amp;#x2f;ir6pj0ikw1q123j&amp;#x2f;Guhyasamaja-Critical-Study&amp;#x2e;pdf&amp;#x3f;dl&amp;#x3d;0"&gt;https://www.dropbox.com/s/ir6pj0ikw1q123j/Guhyasamaja-Critical-Study.pdf?dl=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dropbox&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;s&amp;#x2f;ub6lfovz32bf82q&amp;#x2f;Keith-Dowman-Masters-of-Mahamudra&amp;#x2e;pdf&amp;#x3f;dl&amp;#x3d;0"&gt;https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub6lfovz32bf82q/Keith-Dowman-Masters-of-Mahamudra.pdf?dl=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dropbox&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;s&amp;#x2f;jy8lwafyws653zl&amp;#x2f;Thurman-Robert-a-F-Tr-Tsong-Khapa-Losang-Drakpa-Brilliant-Illumination-of-the-Lamp-of-the-Five-Stages&amp;#x2e;pdf&amp;#x3f;dl&amp;#x3d;0"&gt;https://www.dropbox.com/s/jy8lwafyws653zl/Thurman-Robert-a-F-Tr-Tsong-Khapa-Losang-Drakpa-Brilliant-Illumination-of-the-Lamp-of-the-Five-Stages.pdf?dl=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You will notice that the tantras are noticeably less ritualistic and dogmatic than their Tibetan traditions, in Tibet it is necessary to receive empowerment, as well as follow strict samaya and so on and so forth before receiving secret instructions on karmamudra. In the tantras, the yogin is merely instructed to find a consort after he &amp;#034;has generated some heat&amp;#034;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There was a long section within the Mahamudra article on Wikipedia, which I will reproduce for you here that emphasizes the sexuality of Mahamudra:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;i&amp;#x2e;gyazo&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;14ad9f70245c88aef0bedbaa3c295a3a&amp;#x2e;png" /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahamudra&amp;amp;diff=592198086&amp;amp;oldid=591190428&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;James&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Edit:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The text in the image is very small, in order to view the full size image, please right click it and select: view image, or you could just download it.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:22:01 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587484</guid> <dc:creator>J J</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T21:22:01Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587474</link> <description>Reich was a personal student of Freud. He extended Freud&amp;#039;s ideas about sexuality. Lowen and Pierrakos were students of Reich. Hyatt was a student of Regardie who was a student of Reich and Crowley who was a student of the Tantrics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, Reichian/Crowleyian/Tantric actually &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/tongue.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:18:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587474</guid> <dc:creator>Droll Dedekind</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T21:18:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587454</link> <description>Haha, that sounded so Freudian!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(EDIT: In a good way &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/smug.gif" &gt; )</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:54:52 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587454</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T20:54:52Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587450</link> <description>Like many around here, I don&amp;#039;t feel the need to follow Buddha&amp;#039;s teachings to a tee. All of Buddha&amp;#039;s supplementary teachings have been significantly improved upon. I&amp;#039;m satisfied with Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though if I had to choose one aspect I would agree that Buddha&amp;#039;s attitude toward sex is the worst part of his teachings. I also agree with another poster that said the Tantrics have a lot to say about sexuality and emotion. Though, the Tantrics have always constituted a minority of practitioners, and Tantric practices are hardly ever discussed on the DhO.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sexuality is central to psychology and spirituality. That sex could ever be ignored or considered secondary in matters of liberation amazes me. I strongly suspect that the emotional well-being many DhOers seem to be seeking in AF would better be sought in restoring their own natural sexuality via their bodies. I find the work of Reich, Lowen, Pierrakos, and Hyatt useful in this regard.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:44:41 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587450</guid> <dc:creator>Droll Dedekind</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T20:44:41Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587421</link> <description>Hi Nicky,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You don&amp;#039;t need to give up much of anything to practice jhana meditation. In fact, removing inhibitions is probably the easiest way to fuel concentration practice. I think even mass murderers could do jhana. So to say monks are giving up sex to do jhana doen&amp;#039;t really add up. That&amp;#039;s like saying I will give up eating pizza because I want to eat ice cream. I&amp;#039;m perfectly capable of eating both - even at the same time. They go well together too!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dumping inhibitions hasn&amp;#039;t led to any suffering on my part. It&amp;#039;s actually improved my life dramatically in a short period of time. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/closed_eyes.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:47:17 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587421</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T19:47:17Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587407</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;If there is a divide in what monks and laypeople do, then that probably means it&amp;#039;s not a religion for everyone.  Monks are prohibited from any kind of sexual behavior.  This isn&amp;#039;t freedom, and it isn&amp;#039;t morality, it&amp;#039;s avoidance....Contentment does not come from being moral, it comes from dumping inhibitions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is very clear in Buddhism that the pleasure &amp;amp; bliss of non-sexuality, i.e., the bliss of meditation/jhana, far surpasses the pleasure (frought with suffering) of sexuality. The monks are not avoiding anything. The monks are giving up a lesser pleasure to obtain a greater pleasure. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Dhammapada states:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;290. If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the greater. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for &amp;#039;morality&amp;#039;, Buddhism explains: &amp;#034;non-harming is happiness in this world&amp;#034;. As for &amp;#039;dumping inhibitions&amp;#039;, Buddhism would certainly say this will lead to great suffering. Buddhism is &amp;#039;The Middle Way&amp;#039;, i.e., not too strict, not too uninhibited. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/girl.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:20:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587407</guid> <dc:creator>Nicky</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T19:20:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587399</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I also think the focus on anatta is unhelpful.  Thanks for reminding me. :3&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A tree cannot be climbed from the top. Buddhism begins with the aspiration to non-harming &amp;amp; non-suffering. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/karate_kid.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:11:01 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587399</guid> <dc:creator>Nicky</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T19:11:01Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587389</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;In a nutshell, I think Buddhism fails to address the idea of inhibitions.  By creating a system of strict morality, you end up avoiding the deep emotional issues, like lust and hatred, by suppressing them.  There are many passages right in the pali cannon that encourage the suppression of thought, and I think this is why.  You yourself, psi, told me that the PCE wasn&amp;#039;t complete without thoughtlessness.  I&amp;#039;ve found that direct study of these deep emotional issues, without the burden of seeing them as incorrect or wrong, has allowed me to come to a more complete solution how to live with them and diffuse them.  Sex, especially, is just patently ignored by Buddhism, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest craving we encounter.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Although the Buddha-Dhamma is perfect, it has always been understood by the wise that it is not accessible to all beings, particularly those deficient in &lt;strong&gt;wisdom&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Path in Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path, which starts (rather than ends) with &lt;strong&gt;Right Understanding &lt;/strong&gt;(wisdom). If the true benefit &amp;amp; true harms of sexuality are not clearly comprehended, then the instinctual (animilistic) sexual urge cannot be controlled, let alone extinguished. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sexual craving is only the strongest craving to a mind immersed in ignorance. The Buddha taught:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Monks, &lt;strong&gt;ignorance &lt;/strong&gt;is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by &lt;strong&gt;lack of conscience &amp;amp; lack of concern&lt;/strong&gt;. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Avijja Sutta: Ignorance&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For example, when I was a young man, I had plenty of sexual cravings. However, it only required one profound insight into the profound &lt;strong&gt;harm &lt;/strong&gt;(wrongly practised) &lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;sex can cause to extinguish my sexual orientation. The extinguishing of my sexual phenomology was unrelated to &amp;#039;strict morality&amp;#039;. It was related to wisdom &amp;amp; the arising of deep compassion (conscience &amp;amp; concern). A couple of years later, when I chanced upon Buddhism, my mind immediately entered into &lt;em&gt;samadhi &lt;/em&gt;as soon as I comprehended how to practise meditation correctly. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Buddhism is not a doctrine of moral effort, say like Islam. Buddhism is a doctrine of wisdom, which is why &amp;#039;Buddha&amp;#039; means &amp;#039;the wise one&amp;#039;. It is not the Buddhist teaching that fall short but it is the wisdom of people that falls short. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the actual benefits &amp;amp; harms of sex are comprehended clearly, then sexuality will be under control (even if one is of the dispostion to engage in sexuality). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is important to understand &amp;#039;morality&amp;#039; in Buddhism does not mean &amp;#039;discipline&amp;#039;. Instead, &amp;#039;morality&amp;#039; in Buddhism means &amp;#039;non-harming&amp;#039;. From a Buddhist perspective, anything behaviour outside of the moral boundaries set by Buddhism is harmful behaviour. Naturally, when wisdom discerns that certain motivations lead to harming others, those motivations (cravings) will naturally reduce &amp;amp; even end. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/karate_kid.gif" &gt;&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/girl.gif" &gt;&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/in_love.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:48:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587389</guid> <dc:creator>Nicky</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T18:48:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587275</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;These guidelines will set up a whole network of checks in the mind where a person will monitor every word and sentence before it comes out.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Yes, that is where Right Mindfulness comes in, being aware, nobody said training the mind was easy or automatic. The language centers aof the mind are relatively new, evolutionary speaking , for us, the training can be difficult, I see it as a game or a sport. I have alot to do on the Right Speech Fold of the path.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since you have agreed with me here, maybe I can focus my argument on this. Placing checks on the actions is the wrong place to look, in my opinion. I would rather find the freedom of being able to say anything without feeling bad about it. I believe this freedom will lead to what buddhists consider wholesome because the absence of malice will cause a person to speak from contentment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So the difference is, I see no need to train what I say, but rather to train how I feel. This way, if I accidentally say something untrue or unkind, there is no loss of tranquility. My path seems to be leading me towards spontenaity, so the only &amp;#034;right action&amp;#034; I might be developing is the completely artless personality of a mind that doesn&amp;#039;t consider anything very important. Training in morality ADDS inhibitions and checks on what the mind is supposed to do. Training in spontenaity releases these inhibitions. You can add things forever, but you can only subtract until nothing is left.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;These guidelines will set up a whole network of checks in the mind where a person will monitor every word and sentence before it comes out.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is what I agreed to, and I basically said it is not an easy training, but not an impossible training, if it is too hard don&amp;#039;t do worry about it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I see through your debating tricks of trying to say I agree with you then making claims and diversions about another subject.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The subject was Right Speech, you then avoided the subject and went on to describe Tranquility (Samma Samadhi), and about inhibitions.  Maybe it is just the ego rationalizing excuses to hang on to the practice of wrong and harmful speech.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why do you think morality ADDS inhibitions? Through training, one will reduce inhibitions, one becomes wholesome naturally, then inhibitions are not even a topic for discussion. The training is not suppressing or inhibiting, it is a process to incline the mind in a wholesome direction, simply put, Recognition, no Blame, and Change.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe you do just like to debate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:47:55 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587275</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T14:47:55Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587210</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;These guidelines will set up a whole network of checks in the mind where a person will monitor every word and sentence before it comes out.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Yes, that is where Right Mindfulness comes in, being aware, nobody said training the mind was easy or automatic. The language centers aof the mind are relatively new, evolutionary speaking , for us, the training can be difficult, I see it as a game or a sport. I have alot to do on the Right Speech Fold of the path.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since you have agreed with me here, maybe I can focus my argument on this. Placing checks on the actions is the wrong place to look, in my opinion. I would rather find the freedom of being able to say anything without feeling bad about it. I believe this freedom will lead to what buddhists consider wholesome because the absence of malice will cause a person to speak from contentment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So the difference is, I see no need to train what I say, but rather to train how I feel. This way, if I accidentally say something untrue or unkind, there is no loss of tranquility. My path seems to be leading me towards spontenaity, so the only &amp;#034;right action&amp;#034; I might be developing is the completely artless personality of a mind that doesn&amp;#039;t consider anything very important. Training in morality ADDS inhibitions and checks on what the mind is supposed to do. Training in spontenaity releases these inhibitions. You can add things forever, but you can only subtract until nothing is left.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:37:56 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587210</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T13:37:56Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587040</link> <description>Not Tao,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;       You do not have a strong practice to back up what you think. Your opinions on stream entry, the stages of insight, non-self have been conjectures based upon your limited understanding and the acknolwedgment you have not actually experienced these things. You have said this yourself. Your stating the opposite here demonstrates the illogical and inconsistent/flimsy nature of your beliefs and ideas.     &lt;br /&gt;        Also there is not one buddhism. Tantric Buddhism priviliges sex and has much to say about emotions.&lt;br /&gt;        Finally, now that you have realized that the aims of the site are not useful to you, why continue to post so fervently? I don&amp;#039;t mean that in a &amp;#034;you&amp;#039;re not allowed here because you have different ideas&amp;#034; way. I am again genuinely asking: if you think the general concensus of the message board (not that such a thing exists as one unified front, but it is clear from Danie&amp;#039;s mission statement that meditation is a priority) is not useful, why post?</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 05:29:15 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587040</guid> <dc:creator>William Golden Finch</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T05:29:15Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587037</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I also think the focus on anatta is unhelpful.  Thanks for reminding me. :3&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Yes, very perplexing !  It&amp;#039;s like a rubic&amp;#039;s cube made of millions of neurons!</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 05:06:57 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587037</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T05:06:57Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587034</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Personally, I learned about Actual Freedom first on here, and there is a small community of people practicing it here.  I enjoy debate as well, and people have strong practices to back up what they think.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t think I&amp;#039;m adding much useful information to this thread, though.  I haven&amp;#039;t done any reading of the suttas for a number of months, so I&amp;#039;m mostly just picking at memories.  I spent a few minutes searching on Google for my references but I realized I didn&amp;#039;t actually care very much, haha.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Truth be told, I&amp;#039;ve never fully understood what Buddhism is supposed to be.  I thought I knew when I was reading the sutta pitaka, but then all the Buddhists I read seemed to be talking about something different. It&amp;#039;s tough to navigate these arguments because people will jump from talking about scriptures, to commentaries, to traditional aspects, to modern meditation masters, and it&amp;#039;s impossible to know what any individual person is willing to reject or embrace or translate through their own lenses. That&amp;#039;s one of the reasons I dropped any associations I might have had - I never actually found a home anywhere.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;That&amp;#039;s okay, I understand, welcome home, let us just be spiritual practioners, or just be humans.  Hi, human.  For me it becomes extremely simple and straightforward, though maybe not super easy to practice , but nothing really valuable comes easy now does it?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For me it&amp;#039;s like this:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is dukkha, and dukkha comes from wanting things or situations a certain way when they are not, and dukkha comes from not wanting things a certain way when they are, this comes from a delusion of Me, Me wants it, Me doesn&amp;#039;t wants it.  When it is in reality there is no Me other than a mental construct, the illusion dispels, when there is no me, there is no more wanting or not wanting arising from the Me formation.  Then there is just reality , or Dharma, (phenomenon).  At that point, one is free.  If one hasn&amp;#039;t uprooted the me wanting and me not wanting syndrome, then it will grow back, and the cycle will recur again and again, like the impersonal  process that it is.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(don&amp;#039;t worry about the me thing right now, exept maybe to catch even one mind moment without it, just drop it all, and see what&amp;#039;s there)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Luckily, there are ways to reduce this cycle, and if if one can not permanently eliminate the cycle, the progress so far has shown me that it , works , it is real, it is not a fairy tale, and there are positive results.  Not mere promises.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And, to be sure there is more than one method or teaching that will bring about change and positive results.  Many methods. But minds are minds, what one mind can do any mind can do, (barring physical damage and what not).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And lastly, yes just read the Sutta is best, it was suggested to me to read one sutta, a little at a time, and practice what is taught, read a little practice etc. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; But if you aren&amp;#039;t interested right now, that&amp;#039;s fine, especially if you are making progress on identifying and resolving at the emotional level with Actual Freedom.  Especially learning to recognize emotional triggers, what starts the emotional cycle?  What reduces or removes unwanted emotional cycles?  Investigate phenomonen, understanding the way things work is Wisdom, and Wisdom is the only way out.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Humans, may we all find peace&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 05:03:20 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587034</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T05:03:20Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587026</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;It&amp;#039;s hard to know what the Buddha actually thought about these things.  &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Why, what is so hard exactly?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;It&amp;#039;s the -ism that we have to critique, and buddhist scriptures, stories, and poetry is quite full of inhibitions.  &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Where does the Buddha dispaly inhibitions in the scripture, stories, or poetry?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;By removing the concept of morality, wholesomeness, correctness, whatever you want to call it, we are forced to face things as they are, see ourselves as we are, and come to our own conclusions about what is correct and what isn&amp;#039;t.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Why do you want to remove what is morale, wholesome, or correct?   Perhaps by using our minds for ourselves to see what is wholesome or unwholesome we can then work on change, and come to the conclusions that will lead to a greater harmony, instead of fighting it all the time.  I do agree one does have to come to their own conclusions about what is correct and what isn&amp;#039;t.  As long as it isn&amp;#039;t a selfish view of correctness, or correct for one but at another&amp;#039;s expense.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Let&amp;#039;s take right speech as an example. You aren&amp;#039;t supposed to say anything that would offend anyone for any reason&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;It is speech that is not to harm others, if someone is offended, usually it is because of the ego defense mechanism, For instance, if someone is smoking around a baby, and one tells them to please not smoke around the baby, they might get offended, but where is the harm?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;you&amp;#039;re only supposed to talk about the dhamma, &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Dharma:&lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;The state of Nature as it is (&lt;em&gt;yathā bhūta&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)#cite_note-1][1]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;The Laws of Nature considered both collectively and individually.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;The teaching of the &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;en&amp;#x2e;wikipedia&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;wiki&amp;#x2f;Gautama_Buddha"&gt;Buddha&lt;/a&gt; as an exposition of the Natural Law applied to the problem of human suffering.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;A phenomenon and/or its properties.&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)#cite_note-2][2]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;Yes, I have read that&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;and you aren&amp;#039;t supposed to say anything untrue for any reason. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;I agree&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;These guidelines will set up a whole network of checks in the mind where a person will monitor every word and sentence before it comes out.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Yes, that is where Right Mindfulness comes in, being aware, nobody said training the mind was easy or automatic.  The language centers aof the mind are relatively new, evolutionary speaking , for us, the training can be difficult, I see it as a game or a sport.  I have alot to do on the Right Speech Fold of the path.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The buddha says directly that we should feel bad about breaking our precepts. This is 180 degrees opposite (if I may borrow the phrase) to how I see my own practice. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe one should know shame for causing harmm , and use that as an indicator of where one should focus their efforts, but no-one said anyone should walk around feeling bad, that&amp;#039;s guilt, that&amp;#039;s not very useful and is unwholesome, Recognize, No Blame, and Change.&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;If a person allows themself to let go of morality and the idea that they have to relate well to anyone at all, they will speak freely and openly. Because of this, they are more likely to speak what is true, to say pleasant things, and demonstrate contentment with their words. Contentment does not come from being moral, it comes from dumping inhibitions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;That sounds exactly like what most people do, what a catastrophe!  No, when most people speak openly and freely, they usually tell little lies and whatnot, gossip, backbite, bitch and moan, poke fun at each other, and most do not speak words full of contentment.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;p.s. I did turn myself 180 degrees just now and I was standing on the same spot.  &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/mellow.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Wherever you go , there you are.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In peace&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 04:18:31 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587026</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T04:18:31Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587023</link> <description>Personally, I learned about Actual Freedom first on here, and there is a small community of people practicing it here.  I enjoy debate as well, and people have strong practices to back up what they think.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t think I&amp;#039;m adding much useful information to this thread, though.  I haven&amp;#039;t done any reading of the suttas for a number of months, so I&amp;#039;m mostly just picking at memories.  I spent a few minutes searching on Google for my references but I realized I didn&amp;#039;t actually care very much, haha.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Truth be told, I&amp;#039;ve never fully understood what Buddhism is supposed to be.  I thought I knew when I was reading the sutta pitaka, but then all the Buddhists I read seemed to be talking about something different. It&amp;#039;s tough to navigate these arguments because people will jump from talking about scriptures, to commentaries, to traditional aspects, to modern meditation masters, and it&amp;#039;s impossible to know what any individual person is willing to reject or embrace or translate through their own lenses. That&amp;#039;s one of the reasons I dropped any associations I might have had - I never actually found a home anywhere.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 04:13:25 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587023</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T04:13:25Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587018</link> <description>My girl is in the shower so I&amp;#039;ll be quick with this as I think soon we will be watching Frozen Planet (Polar Bears, rawr! hahahaha*), but a more interesting question to me is why people who honestly believe that meditation is not useful and some of what are seen as the core principles of development (as they are spoken about here) are not useful would spend time hanging around a site such as this. I don&amp;#039;t have an answer. I really honestly don&amp;#039;t understand it. I feel in some ways that perhaps one day Beoman will just come out of the closet and announce that he and Felipe have been meditating secretly to Sharon Salzberg metta intensive retreats from a 1989 retreat for years, and &amp;#034;Will you guys please accept us back?&amp;#034;, with lots of &amp;#034;&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/sad.gif" &gt;&amp;#034; emoticons (that is a frown face, it connotes sadness). But it is an honest question. If you did not find something of value, why would you a hang around a site dedicated to those things. An important follow up question would be: Would a person who is happy spend their time on a site dedicated to opposing values, telling others how misunderstood they are. Just some thoughts. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;*hahaha generally connotes laughter, as in &amp;#034;wow, polar bears, that&amp;#039;s different. laugh with me even though it&amp;#039;s not that funny&amp;#034;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 03:51:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587018</guid> <dc:creator>William Golden Finch</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T03:51:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587009</link> <description>I don&amp;#039;t see it as being about what&amp;#039;s wholesome or not, it&amp;#039;s about whether a person wants to be free or not.  A monk is prohibited from having any kind of sexual experience, and if they do they are thrown out.  It&amp;#039;s not just sex, either.  Monks can&amp;#039;t eat after noon, can&amp;#039;t handle money, can&amp;#039;t ask for help of any kind, the list goes on.  These are supposedly training rules, but in the end they&amp;#039;re a list of inhibitions the monk takes on.  This obviously isn&amp;#039;t a system designed for everyday people, nor is it a system designed to lead people to freedom from inhibitions.  It&amp;#039;s a system to disenchant people, to make the world unpalatable - everything is imperminant, not self, and dukkha.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You can make the argument that laypeople don&amp;#039;t have to take on these rules, but it&amp;#039;s also assumed that householders aren&amp;#039;t going to be enlightened.  Normal life is too full of attachments for a person to become disenchanted enough to reach enlightenment.  This is a common theme in the suttas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;d rather find freedom in everyday life by becoming enchanted with the world. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 03:40:41 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5587009</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T03:40:41Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586980</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The buddha says directly that we should feel bad about breaking our precepts. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Where?</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:25:20 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586980</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T02:25:20Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586977</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Not TaoIf there is a divide in what monks and laypeople do, then that probably means it&amp;#039;s not a religion for everyone.  Monks are prohibited from any kind of sexual behavior.  &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;I just posted on this, but let me explain from the monk/bhikkhuni side of things.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First what do you NEED sex for if you are a monk?  Sex has one logical reason, to make more humans.  Through evolutionary processes, the DNA combinations that had sex and were successful passed along their DNA combinations, the one&amp;#039;s that had fun while doing it tended to procreate more and team up with other fun loving sex partners, passing along their DNA combinations.  So, a Monk/Bhikkhuni has no Need to procreate, so they don&amp;#039;t need sex.  Maybe the subject just never comes up in a fully trained mind.  A fully trained mind would have access to joy and bliss at anytime anyway.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There are over 7 billion people on the planet, when does that stop? at the planet&amp;#039;s environmental ceiling?  Then what,  mass suffering? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So from that view if someone wants to willingly become celibate, why is that unwholesome?  Are they commiting a crime? Are they spreading disease? Are they really missing anything anyway? Are they being selfish and greedy?  Are they being hateful? Is their mind lusting for sex all the time, or maybe they are just at peace and are contented people?  Can&amp;#039;t one be happy without being bothered by the sexual instinct and not be made fun of?  Are they being led around by their emotions?  Are they attatched to sensual pleasures?  Are they in some kind of pain or agony?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe they are just disenchanted with the rigamarole of the whole sex scenario....&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Besides, I am not a Monk, I am a layperson, don&amp;#039;t practice sexual misconduct, so topic of Monk sex is irrelevant to my current experience.  </description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:18:10 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586977</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T02:18:10Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586968</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Further, the pragmatic dharma scene is too focused on meditation as an all in one solution.  Not much else is even discussed. I&amp;#039;m starting to see these days that, if a person is going to meditate at all, they should do it only after resolving most of their emotional issues, otherwise the increased concentration can be very dangerous to mental stability.  I probably would have laughed at the idea that meditation could be dangerous before, but there you go, that&amp;#039;s our cultural understanding.  The reason the dark night is seens as such a standard part of the path is because people see meditation as the solution to emotional problems.  Just grit your teeth and do it, right?  I don&amp;#039;t think the Buddha talked about it this way.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;EDIT: I see you mentioned the focus on meditation already, so I just second that with my second paragraph. ^^&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Well, Wrong Mindfulness and Wrong Concentration will certainly not help, but Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration are indeed very beneficial, not only to spiritual practice, but also to a healthy sane mind.  Scientific studies are proving this.  But, one can overdo anything, one can&amp;#039;t emulate Daniel Ingram who has 20 plus years of meditation practice, and jump right into a Goenka Retreat.  One has to build up to these things.  For honesty&amp;#039;s sake, I&amp;#039;ve never been on a formal retreat, I&amp;#039;m not sure I am ready, and even if I was , I need vaction time and money for travel / dana.  Things are just to tight, so I do what I can do.  Besides Life is a waking meditation for my practice, Paying attention to what the mind is doing in the present moment, being aware of external triggers to internal emotional reactions, practicing being nice and helpful, not being greedy and/or selfish, using right speech (Is what I am about to say going to improve the silence, or is it going to harm someone?)  And if I mess up, recognize it, change the behavior starting from this moment going forward.  Blaming one&amp;#039;s self only adds more dukkha, then you not only have the dukkha by not being harmonious, but you add the negativity of blaming yourself for something aready in the past.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As to Dark Night, No Comment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Metta&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bryan</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:42:31 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586968</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T01:42:31Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586962</link> <description>If there is a divide in what monks and laypeople do, then that probably means it&amp;#039;s not a religion for everyone.  Monks are prohibited from any kind of sexual behavior.  This isn&amp;#039;t freedom, and it isn&amp;#039;t morality, it&amp;#039;s avoidance.  In fact, a theme in the abhidhamma is the exulted lonely monk meditating in a cave, removed from the world (see the rhinoceros section). This isn&amp;#039;t a good way to resolve the human condition. If monks really wanted to set an example for humanity, they would make their own way in the world, have meaningful relationships, and show that its possible to enjoy life as a regular human being, not an ascetic. Instead they live off donations from hardworking people and tell them it will generate merit to help with their own enlightenment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s hard to know what the Buddha actually thought about these things.  It&amp;#039;s the -ism that we have to critique, and buddhist scriptures, stories, and poetry is quite full of inhibitions.  By removing the concept of morality, wholesomeness, correctness, whatever you want to call it, we are forced to face things as they are, see ourselves as we are, and come to our own conclusions about what is correct and what isn&amp;#039;t.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Let&amp;#039;s take right speech as an example. You aren&amp;#039;t supposed to say anything that would offend anyone for any reason, you&amp;#039;re only supposed to talk about the dhamma, and you aren&amp;#039;t supposed to say anything untrue for any reason. These guidelines will set up a whole network of checks in the mind where a person will monitor every word and sentence before it comes out. The buddha says directly that we should feel bad about breaking our precepts. This is 180 degrees opposite (if I may borrow the phrase) to how I see my own practice. If a person allows themself to let go of morality and the idea that they have to relate well to anyone at all, they will speak freely and openly. Because of this, they are more likely to speak what is true, to say pleasant things, and demonstrate contentment with their words. Contentment does not come from being moral, it comes from dumping inhibitions.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:31:39 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586962</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T01:31:39Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586959</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao :&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;In a nutshell, I think Buddhism fails to address the idea of inhibitions.  By creating a system of strict morality, you end up avoiding the deep emotional issues, like lust and hatred, by suppressing them. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The fourth one (repeated below)&lt;br /&gt;is very pertinent to the practice you describe, this is a good book , by the way.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;“When you are angry, and you suffer, please go&lt;br /&gt;back and inspect very deeply the content, the nature&lt;br /&gt;of your perceptions. If you are capable of removing&lt;br /&gt;the wrong perception, peace and happiness will&lt;br /&gt;be restored in you, and you will be able to&lt;br /&gt;love the other person again.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;From:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Taming the Tiger Within  by Thich Nhat Hanh&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;“When you say something unkind, when you&lt;br /&gt;do something in retaliation, your anger increases.&lt;br /&gt;You make the other person suffer, and they try hard&lt;br /&gt;to say or do something back to make you suffer,&lt;br /&gt;and get relief from their suffering. That is&lt;br /&gt;how conflict escalates.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;“Just like our organs, our anger is part of us.&lt;br /&gt;When we are angry, we have to go back to ourselves&lt;br /&gt;and take good care of our anger. We cannot say,&lt;br /&gt;‘Go away, anger, I don’t want you.’ When you have&lt;br /&gt;a stomachache, you don’t say, ‘I don’t want you&lt;br /&gt;stomach, go away.’ No, you take care of it.&lt;br /&gt;In the same way, we have to embrace and&lt;br /&gt;take good care of our anger.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Just because anger or hate is present does not&lt;br /&gt;mean that the capacity to love and accept&lt;br /&gt;is not there; love is always with you.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“When you are angry, and you suffer, please go&lt;br /&gt;back and inspect very deeply the content, the nature&lt;br /&gt;of your perceptions. If you are capable of removing&lt;br /&gt;the wrong perception, peace and happiness will&lt;br /&gt;be restored in you, and you will be able to&lt;br /&gt;love the other person again.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“When you get angry with someone, please don’t&lt;br /&gt;pretend that you are not angry. Don’t pretend that&lt;br /&gt;you don’t suffer. If the other person is dear to you,&lt;br /&gt;then you have to confess that you are angry, and that&lt;br /&gt;you suffer. Tell him or her in a calm, loving way.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“In the beginning you may not understand the&lt;br /&gt;nature of your anger, or why it has come to be.&lt;br /&gt;But if you know how to embrace it with the&lt;br /&gt;energy of mindfulness, it will begin&lt;br /&gt;to become clear to you.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Anger is like a howling baby, suffering and crying.&lt;br /&gt;Your anger is your baby. The baby needs his mother&lt;br /&gt;to embrace him. You are the mother.&lt;br /&gt;Embrace your baby.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Anger has roots in nonanger elements. It&lt;br /&gt;has roots in the way we live our daily life. If we&lt;br /&gt;take good care of everything in us, without&lt;br /&gt;discrimination, we prevent our negative energies&lt;br /&gt;from dominating. We reduce the strength&lt;br /&gt;of our negative seeds so that they&lt;br /&gt;won’t overwhelm us.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“In a time of anger or despair, even if we feel&lt;br /&gt;overwhelmed, our love is still there. Our capacity to&lt;br /&gt;communicate, to forgive, to be compassionate is&lt;br /&gt;still there. You have to believe this. We are more&lt;br /&gt;than our anger, we are more than our suffering.&lt;br /&gt;We must recognize that we do have within&lt;br /&gt;us the capacity to love, to understand,&lt;br /&gt;to be compassionate, always.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Tahoma&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;“When we embrace anger and take good care of&lt;br /&gt;our anger, we obtain relief. We can look deeply into&lt;br /&gt;it and gain many insights. One of the first insights&lt;br /&gt;may be that the seed of anger in us has grown too&lt;br /&gt;big, and is the main cause of our misery. As we&lt;br /&gt;begin to see this reality, we realize that the other&lt;br /&gt;person, whom our anger is directed at, is only&lt;br /&gt;a secondary cause. The other person is&lt;br /&gt;not the real cause of our anger.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:21:04 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586959</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T01:21:04Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586950</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;  By creating a system of strict morality, you end up avoiding the deep emotional issues, like lust and hatred, by suppressing them.  There are many passages right in the pali cannon that encourage the suppression of thought, and I think this is why.  &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;What strict system of morality?  There is a harmonious morality, one with common sense, one in which an individual recognizes unwholesomeness and the effects of such actions in thought , word , and deed, and wholesome morality which one recognizes the effects of those thoughts, words, and deeds.  One then Recognizes, Changes, and doesn&amp;#039;t Blame themselves or others.  One simply takes responsiblity and undertakes the training to practice wholesome thought, speech and action.  In no way does anyone avoid deep emotional issues, in fact they are faced directly towards their own behaviors, and take the individual responsiblity to deal with them , directly.  Lust and Hatred are first to be made aware ofm then attended to, suppressing is a form of ignoring, not dealing with anger and lust, that is ignorance.  Ignorance is at the core of anger and lust, if one is ignoring the triggers for anger and lust, or is ignoring the ways to calm and abandon anger and lust once it has arisen, the one will be at the mercy of the emotional reaction, led around by the nose.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What passages right in the Pali Canon encourage the suppression of thought that leads you to think Buddha taught people to ignore and/or suppress lust and anger.  I know of only one passage that uses a method to suppress anger, and that is the 5th method of 5 and used as a  last resort, when all else fails.  This one passage is also to have said to be a later inserted section.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is all for now, I guess the sex topic is up to bat next, and quickly, (not quickee) I think it is fine for laypeople to have sex, (not all at once) if it is consentual , doesn&amp;#039;t hurt anyone, and isn&amp;#039;t unwholesome (underage children, animals, etc.)  This should be rather obvious, the rules for monks are different, but for laypeople , that is the jist of it.  Sex is a body function, and part of being human.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s all for now, got a family obligation at the moment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Metta&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bryan</description> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:54:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586950</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-20T00:54:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586929</link> <description>Some issues I see with DhO-culture:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;Overemphasis on meditation, often to the detriment of the practitioner, if practiced correctly there should be no dark night (re: patipada-vagga of the anguttara nikaya). The Buddha explicitly censures meditation that supersorbs, besorbs, absorbs and resorbs one&amp;#039;s mind in unwholesome nivaranas, such as doubt, restlessness, remorse, sloth and torpor etc.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Disparaging of intellectual knowledge of scripture, to the detriment of the practitioner. A practitioner will benefit greatly from having a correct view and being able to distinguish between Buddha-dharma and other doctrines. Because of lack of grounding in Canon, many practitioners here have strayed and taken up what &amp;#034;seem to be&amp;#034; similar to qualitatively similar doctrines. Re: The monk of the fourth stage of meditation (from Dogen&amp;#039;s Shobogenzo)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Excessive removal of dogma and tradition, both of which are helpful, by cleaning the slate and starting from the beginning, we throw out the baby with the bathwater, and have to figure out everything ourselves, via introspective meditation, this method of obtaining correct view is censured by the Buddha (re: Brahmajala Sutta, also see Licchavi Bhaddiya Sutta (translated by Piya Tan))&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Overemphasis on, and identification with, temporary meditative states and experiences. The Buddha prescribes dis-idenfication even with the jhanas.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My 2 cents.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am not censuring this community however, I fully endorse this community as a genuine sangha and consisting of Dharma practitioners, however due to lack of scriptural study, and lack of grounding in the Dhamma (right view), certain meditators will spiral when they start meditating from a blank slate. Without a view, they may even believe their experiences!</description> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:57:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586929</guid> <dc:creator>J J</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-19T23:57:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586925</link> <description>I also think the focus on anatta is unhelpful.  Thanks for reminding me. :3</description> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:48:46 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586925</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-19T23:48:46Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586922</link> <description>&lt;span style="color: #8b8d8d"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Helvetica&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: georgia&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 24px"&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 48px"&gt;“&lt;/span&gt;The reason we find it so difficult to be really mindful is the fact that true attention shows us that there is no person, only mind and body. It is like coming up against a wall and instead of digging through that wall, the mind veers off and doesn’t want to know anything further. True mindfulness has arisen when there is only the action but no doer. With divided mindfulness we experience both, the one who is mindful and the one who is being watched. If we use precision in our attention, we see&amp;#x2014;even if only for a moment&amp;#x2014;that no person is embedded in our mind/body process.&lt;span style="font-size: 32px"&gt;”&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #787979"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Helvetica&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #626566"&gt;Ayya Khema, from &lt;em&gt;Within Our Own Hearts&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:45:38 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586922</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-19T23:45:38Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586918</link> <description>In a nutshell, I think Buddhism fails to address the idea of inhibitions.  By creating a system of strict morality, you end up avoiding the deep emotional issues, like lust and hatred, by suppressing them.  There are many passages right in the pali cannon that encourage the suppression of thought, and I think this is why.  You yourself, psi, told me that the PCE wasn&amp;#039;t complete without thoughtlessness.  I&amp;#039;ve found that direct study of these deep emotional issues, without the burden of seeing them as incorrect or wrong, has allowed me to come to a more complete solution how to live with them and diffuse them.  Sex, especially, is just patently ignored by Buddhism, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest craving we encounter.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Further, the pragmatic dharma scene is too focused on meditation as an all in one solution.  Not much else is even discussed. I&amp;#039;m starting to see these days that, if a person is going to meditate at all, they should do it only after resolving most of their emotional issues, otherwise the increased concentration can be very dangerous to mental stability.  I probably would have laughed at the idea that meditation could be dangerous before, but there you go, that&amp;#039;s our cultural understanding.  The reason the dark night is seens as such a standard part of the path is because people see meditation as the solution to emotional problems.  Just grit your teeth and do it, right?  I don&amp;#039;t think the Buddha talked about it this way.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;EDIT: I see you mentioned the focus on meditation already, so I just second that with my second paragraph. ^^</description> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:42:09 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586918</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-19T23:42:09Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586880</link> <description>Nothing to add.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t see anything wrong with the Buddha-dharma, in its manifold forms, it has benefited me greatly.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:57:02 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586880</guid> <dc:creator>J J</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-19T22:57:02Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Why do you think the Buddha's teachings fall short?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586869</link> <description>This post is not specifically directed towards Not Tao, Beoman , and Felipe, though that may be implied, but also to anyone in general, yes even my brother Sawfoot.  Note: This is the DHO Battleground, so no emotionless crying I can&amp;#039;t hand you a tissue, well you can cry if you want, I&amp;#039;ll understand.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What do you see wrong in the Buddha&amp;#039;s teaching, what is unwholesome, what is incorrect, why do you think you are an emotion, why is a peaceful jhana wrong, why is Bare Attention wrong? Why is karuna, mudita, metta, and uppekha wrong? Why is Right and Wholesome Livelihood wrong?  Why is understanding there is dukkha wrong? Why do you believe believe or not believe in permanence? Do you understand Craving?  What is wrong with practicing Right Speech?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I realise nor all of these questions pertain to anyone, just throwing out some ideas, to stir up some thoughts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Did you not then practice Right Effort, specifically the right effort formula?  And why not, has this never been explained? Buddhist practice isn&amp;#039;t just meditation, that is a misunderstanding on a drastic scale.  It isn&amp;#039;t just noting(that is a method) Vipassana isn&amp;#039;t noting either.  It means to see things the way they are.  If someone has the literal translation, that would help.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you fully understood Right Effort, you may already understand it, you would see, this is probaly one of the missing ingredients to any practice.  It effectively deals with Unwholesome Mind States and should be used each and every time Unwholesome minds states arise, it is a re-training of the mind.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is the same with Jhanas, the insight gained from jhanas is invaluable, one sees that joy can arise from within, independent from external triggers or conditions, and that Jhana is no permanent escape from reality, but that to be able to maintain a non-suppressive entry in to Jhana, one will have a peaceful , happy and contented mind for the majority of their daily living, for a trained mind sits down and is in jhana in a breath or two.  Jhanas are a support system, I am not sure if one that maintains Jhana could get depressed or remain so for long, How could they, they just have to arouse joy from within, BUT jhana is not an end, it is JUST a helpful means.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am just explaining a few things from what I know directly, and understand that you are a very advanced practioner, whilst I might be just a novice, Still Buddhism is:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;ONE PATH that has Eight Folds to it, if just one of the folds is not practiced then the whole of one&amp;#039;s practice falls short, likewise, one can not expect to practice one fold of the patn only and expect to be on the full path.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even yoga has eight limbs, it is not just about postures.  One leads to the other and they are intertwined and when intertwined it makes a strong rope.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And it seems, that if one concentrates too much one fold only, say Jhanas only , or Mindfulness only, there can be progress, but only in a warped fashion.  Instead of a tree growing straight, it would grow to one side only, or perhaps put roots down in only one or two directions instead of all eight.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think people read MCTB and start Noting and blow off the other chapters, Daniel kind of leaves it up to us to study and practice the other aspects of the path, his great expertise being Insight, BUT he has pointed the finger towards the other aspects of the path, and I have only been on the board a short while and seen him mention this several times.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think this is the same with the Buddha not specifically teaching Jhana methods, that is not what he taught.  But this can be easly found elsewhere, dhyana, samadhi, there are tomes of Jhana methods.  Same with energy, arousing energy is very important on the path, but , not many how to methods in the Suttas, yet elswhere there is an abundance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am just a common spiritual practioner and I am curious as to why I see things others do not see, not all others , of course, I am curious as to other viewpoints.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I do stay within the direct words of the Buddha, (as close as it can get barring there were no electronic recordings back then)  But, I do also recognize other Enlightened People and respect their teachings as well, Dhamma is Dhamma, Phenomenon is Phenomenon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And, lastly to start off, if you can&amp;#039;t find anything unwholesome in the buddha&amp;#039;s teaching, what is wrong with it?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Forget about the Dogma, please look directly to the teaching itself, forget the people the temples and the myths, what about the teachings??&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi</description> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:40:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586869</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-19T22:40:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5583995</link> <description>Beoman is stating that all matter (whether it is energy or matter) is permanent and has always existed, as such space, time, and matter have no beginning or end. Rather they have always existed and will continue to exist. Richard rejects any notions of their being Big Bang or a beginning to the universe and states that the infinitude of the universe can be readily apprehended via common sense, and possibly (I may be wrong in this) experienced directly.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to Richard, an actual freedom from the human condition is contingent upon the infinitude and permanency of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Richard does not deny that the universe fluxes.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 03:52:38 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5583995</guid> <dc:creator>J J</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-15T03:52:38Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580832</link> <description>&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;(D Z) Dhru Val:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;They consider something (a state lacking affect) as an ultimate that is objectively true, compared with other things that are just instinctual passions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Would you at least agree that there are more subjective experiences (the autoreferential nature of self/ego/soul/being/whatever experience, for instance) than others (purely sensate experience)?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;(D Z) Dhru Val:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Clinging isn&amp;#039;t limited to affective states. There are more subtle types of clinging &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;For example: I sometimes experience an unplesant tight muscular contraction in the solar plexus region, that can sometimes painful. But otherwise it is non-affective. Based on my investigations this is caused by a subtle sort of clinging, which in turn is caused by momentary ignorance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;d agree with you if with &amp;#034;clinging&amp;#034; you are referring to a certain habit of physical posture, which then turns into a physical discomfort. If that&amp;#039;s not the case and with &amp;#034;clinging&amp;#034; you refer to something purely mental* and that &amp;#034;subtle sort of clinging is caused by momentary ignorance&amp;#034; , then I&amp;#039;d ask you: ignorance of what exactly? What are you ignoring that is causing your clinging activity?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;----&lt;br /&gt;*Mental: &lt;/span&gt;a : of or relating to the mind; specifically : of or relating to the total emotional and intellectual response of an individual to external reality &amp;lt;mental health&amp;gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:51:20 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580832</guid> <dc:creator>Felipe C.</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T16:51:20Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580755</link> <description>The assumption that everyone has the same personal definition of &amp;#039;emotion&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;affect&amp;#039; probably lies at the root of the AF controversy. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I casually use &amp;#039;emotion&amp;#039; to refer to a complex interaction of distinct sets of phenomena including mental state, physical arousal, and &amp;#039;emotional-type body sensations&amp;#039;.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:37:07 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580755</guid> <dc:creator>Droll Dedekind</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T16:37:07Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580501</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Droll Dedekind:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Do you mind defining &amp;#039;emotion&amp;#039; as you understand it, and as you understand the AFT people to understand it? &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is no special definition. &amp;#034;Emotion&amp;#034; is used in the usual sense that everybody understands, as in, I feel happy or I feel sad or I feel love, etc.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:25:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580501</guid> <dc:creator>Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T15:25:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580033</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;According to 2014 science, the law of conservation of energy is considered true, yes. But, the structures composed of energy all seem to be impermanent.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There are some problems with stating that matter and energy are permanent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First of all matter and energy were either created or contained in the singularity of the &amp;#034;Big Bang.&amp;#034;   Current theories tend to favor a &amp;#034;heat death&amp;#034; scenario where the Universe dims out and all matter has decayed in 10^10000 years. This is when entropy is at a maximum and all energy and matter has wound out.  Regardless of how much sum total energy there is, everything has decayed and the Universe is essentially dead. However, a &amp;#034;big crunch&amp;#034; scenario is theoretically possible where the Universe contracts back into a singularity, though not currently in favor.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Using the law of conservation of energy as an example of permanence is taking a process of continuous flux, change, and dissolution and redefining permanence as the sum total of that process.  This is analogous to saying, &amp;#034;All things are not impermanent!  Change is permanent!&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;All things are not impermanent! Nirvana is permanent!&amp;#034;  Neither of these are actual &amp;#034;things.&amp;#034;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:18:35 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5580033</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T09:18:35Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579829</link> <description>I guess people may use the word &amp;#034;ultimate&amp;#034; in various ways, but for me, it means the Three Characteristics, in that these apply to all sensations at all times, before and after, all the way through, so they are the common demoninator of all experience, as well as the basic sensations themselves, as these are the first foundation of all of it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AF seems to delineate two worlds, one Real, the other Actual, and says they are not the same, as questions of Ultimate should seem to apply to all things (Real and Actual), then to call the Actual world Ultimate would seem to be missing something.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As to whatever I did, how it lines up with anything related to AF I have no idea, but I like that mind mod and would recommend it, regardless of how you label it.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 03:33:33 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579829</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel M. Ingram</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T03:33:33Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579824</link> <description>Do you mind defining &amp;#039;emotion&amp;#039; as you understand it, and as you understand the AFT people to understand it? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to 2014 science, the law of conservation of energy is considered true, yes. But, the structures composed of energy all seem to be impermanent.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 03:24:32 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579824</guid> <dc:creator>Droll Dedekind</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T03:24:32Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579705</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Felipe C.:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(D Z) Dhru Val:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Due to the messed up view point &lt;strong&gt;AF&lt;/strong&gt; falls short of ultimate liberation. &lt;strong&gt;They end up clinging&lt;/strong&gt; to the objective. And &lt;strong&gt;to lack of affect&lt;/strong&gt;. This lack of inclusivity limits liberation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Oh? Are you saying that an actually free (from affect) person clings to lack of affect? If a person is free from such affect, what is the substance of such clinging?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;They consider something (a state lacking affect) as an ultimate that is objectively true, compared with other things that are just instinctual passions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So I posit there will be clinging. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Clinging isn&amp;#039;t limited to affective states. There are more subtle types of clinging &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For example: I sometimes experience an unplesant tight muscular contraction in the solar plexus region, that can sometimes painful. But otherwise it is non-affective. Based on my investigations this is caused by a subtle sort of clinging, which in turn is caused by momentary ignorance.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 01:06:47 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579705</guid> <dc:creator>(D Z) Dhru Val</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T01:06:47Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579667</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Droll Dedekind:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;So yes, in the PCE, there are no affective states, not even feeling happy. But the experience itself is remarkably pleasant, wondrous, enjoyable, etc. The way I experienced it was that there is literally nothing to do, except to enjoy the moment - that&amp;#039;s all you have to do if life were always like a PCE. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Something isn&amp;#039;t adding up here... Do you mind defining &amp;#039;affective state&amp;#039; as you understand it and as you understand the AFT people to understand it?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Affective simply means &amp;#034;Relating to, resulting from, or influenced by the emotions.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It surely does add up. The mistake is in assuming that any sort of non-neutral experience is affective. So when you hear about an experience that is wondrously enjoyable and exquisite in every way, you assume it is affective, and it sounds like a contradiction to say it isn&amp;#039;t. This is a common mistake to make though because most of human experience is not a PCE, and thus is indeed affective in some way or another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Droll Dedekind:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Matter isn&amp;#039;t impermanent. Speaking scientifically, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. They do constantly change shape and reconfigure, though. Also I&amp;#039;d say space and time aren&amp;#039;t impermanent. Plus, everything is actually remarkably stable - a cup for instance - even if eventually, over many years, it will degrade. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #222222"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;per·ma·nent&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #222222"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;ˈpərmənənt/&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;adjective&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span style="color: #878787"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;ol style="list-style: decimal outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt;.lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;Space and time aren&amp;#039;t impermanent? Are you frozen in spacetime? Our planet is moving in the Solar System. The gravitational influence on any given region of spacetime by other objects in the Solar System is therefore constantly changing. Spacetime is therefore constantly bending in different directions.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t want to get into this now. But at the very least, since matter can&amp;#039;t be created or destroyed, it means that all the matter that exists today, has always existed in some form or another, and will always continue to exist. There is your permanence.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:56:53 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579667</guid> <dc:creator>Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T23:56:53Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579652</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;So yes, in the PCE, there are no affective states, not even feeling happy. But the experience itself is remarkably pleasant, wondrous, enjoyable, etc. The way I experienced it was that there is literally nothing to do, except to enjoy the moment - that&amp;#039;s all you have to do if life were always like a PCE. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Something isn&amp;#039;t adding up here... Do you mind defining &amp;#039;affective state&amp;#039; as you understand it and as you understand the AFT people to understand it?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Matter isn&amp;#039;t impermanent. Speaking scientifically, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. They do constantly change shape and reconfigure, though. Also I&amp;#039;d say space and time aren&amp;#039;t impermanent. Plus, everything is actually remarkably stable - a cup for instance - even if eventually, over many years, it will degrade. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #222222"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;per·ma·nent&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #222222"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;ˈpərmənənt/&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;adjective&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span style="color: #878787"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;ol style="list-style: decimal outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt;.lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;Space and time aren&amp;#039;t impermanent? Are you frozen in spacetime? Our planet is moving in the Solar System. The gravitational influence on any given region of spacetime by other objects in the Solar System is therefore constantly changing. Spacetime is therefore constantly bending in different directions.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:58:51 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579652</guid> <dc:creator>Droll Dedekind</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T22:58:51Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579617</link> <description>&lt;strong&gt;(D Z) Dhru Val:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Due to the messed up view point &lt;strong&gt;AF&lt;/strong&gt; falls short of ultimate liberation. &lt;strong&gt;They end up clinging&lt;/strong&gt; to the objective. And &lt;strong&gt;to lack of affect&lt;/strong&gt;. This lack of inclusivity limits liberation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Oh? Are you saying that an actually free (from affect) person clings to lack of affect? If a person is free from such affect, what is the substance of such clinging?&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:42:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579617</guid> <dc:creator>Felipe C.</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T21:42:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579601</link> <description>Hi Daniel,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sure thing!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I have a couple questions about your Actualist practice if that&amp;#039;s ok as I&amp;#039;d like to support my own personal practice and development &lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;There are no positive feelings (as in emotions/moods/affective states) when actually free&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;Is that your personal experience or your belief? Since you do not claim AF (Virtually Free?) I&amp;#039;m wondering if this has been something you&amp;#039;ve glimpsed but only temporarily?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s true, I&amp;#039;m not actually free. It&amp;#039;s based on my experience of PCEs, my experience of actually free people (I visited Richard &amp;amp; Vineeto in Australia) and what&amp;#039;s written by actually free people on the AFT site. So I am extrapolating somewhat, not having the experience of actual freedom yet, but the PCE definitely is almost there, going by reports. So yes, in the PCE, there are no affective states, not even feeling happy. But the experience itself is remarkably pleasant, wondrous, enjoyable, etc. The way I experienced it was that there is literally nothing to do, except to enjoy the moment - that&amp;#039;s all you have to do if life were always like a PCE. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; Is there no love, compassion etc there?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No love or compassion either, no. &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; am entirely absent, so too is anything &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; am - which is among other things any emotion. It&amp;#039;s really something else.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Equanimity? (Which feels like an affect to me).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yea I would say equanimity is affective. There isn&amp;#039;t equanimity either. It&amp;#039;s much more vivid and sparkling than that.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;What about instinctual body fear (like someone jumping out of the shadows quickly to attack you or a snake trying to bite you?) It sounds freaky to be honest, but I am open minded, or so I like to think ;)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I haven&amp;#039;t experienced this for myself so I can&amp;#039;t answer from my own experience, but I can link you to something Richard wrote. Did you ask this question after having read the AFT by any chance? He literally describes an instance in which a snake comes out at him (&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;actualfreedom&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;richard&amp;#x2f;abditorium&amp;#x2f;autonomicreflexes&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;). What happened for him is that he still had the instinctual reflex (&amp;#034;These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows [...] and see the green and black snake [...] which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards&amp;#034;), but none of the instinctual passions that usually come with it (&amp;#034;[...] an instinctive response [the stepping back] which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.&lt;br /&gt;There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job &amp;#x2013; the oh-so-vital startle response &amp;#x2013; both efficaciously and cleanly.&amp;#034;).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&amp;#034;...everything is not impermanent, and the emotions and ego are indeed &amp;#034;Self&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;What in your experience is not impermanent? Scientifically and/or spiritually?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Matter isn&amp;#039;t impermanent. Speaking scientifically, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. They do constantly change shape and reconfigure, though. Also I&amp;#039;d say space and time aren&amp;#039;t impermanent. Plus, everything is actually remarkably stable - a cup for instance - even if eventually, over many years, it will degrade. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would rather say that &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; am impermanent, and to attribute that characteristic to the physical universe itself, is to project &amp;#039;my&amp;#039; qualities onto the universe. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Assuming ego and emotions disappear in AF does the Self actually exist until AF occurs and demolishes the Self, or is it all an illusion to begin with, along with emotions and the ego from the start?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not really sure how to answer. It&amp;#039;s a bit weird. So, in a PCE, I only experience what is actually there, and the self is nowhere to be found. It is as if &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; never existed. This is quite a trip! And it&amp;#039;s remarkably freeing. It means no matter what &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; get up to, all of it can be wiped away in just a moment. So &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; am never so strong and persistent that &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; can&amp;#039;t disappear at a moment&amp;#039;s notice. However, then the bizarre thing is that &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; come back, and then that experience of actuality is far gone again. Then &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; am felt to be very real. But I wouldn&amp;#039;t say &amp;#039;I&amp;#039; actually exist. I don&amp;#039;t know if illusion is the right word... but I guess that would be the proper word for experiencing something that isn&amp;#039;t actually there, right?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I really don&amp;#039;t want to get too philosophical here, I&amp;#039;m just hoping to make sense of the training and practice - thank you!&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hope it helped! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;- Claudiu</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:49:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579601</guid> <dc:creator>Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T20:49:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579516</link> <description>Hi Claudiu&lt;br /&gt;I have a couple questions about your Actualist practice if that&amp;#039;s ok as I&amp;#039;d like to support my own personal practice and development &lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;There are no positive feelings (as in emotions/moods/affective states) when actually free&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;Is that your personal experience or your belief? Since you do not claim AF (Virtually Free?) I&amp;#039;m wondering if this has been something you&amp;#039;ve glimpsed but only temporarily? Is there no love, compassion etc there? Equanimity? (Which feels like an affect to me). What about instinctual body fear (like someone jumping out of the shadows quickly to attack you or a snake trying to bite you?) It sounds freaky to be honest, but I am open minded, or so I like to think ;)&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;...everything is not impermanent, and the emotions and ego are indeed &amp;#034;Self&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;What in your experience is not impermanent? Scientifically and/or spiritually? Assuming ego and emotions disappear in AF does the Self actually exist until AF occurs and demolishes the Self, or is it all an illusion to begin with, along with emotions and the ego from the start?&lt;br /&gt;I really don&amp;#039;t want to get too philosophical here, I&amp;#039;m just hoping to make sense of the training and practice - thank you!&lt;br /&gt;Daniel</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:48:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579516</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel Leffler</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T19:48:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579507</link> <description>There seems to be a dukkha/stress center in the brain. There seems to be many many &amp;#034;things&amp;#034; that are wired to it. I am leaning towards the idea that you can Vipassanize just about anything that is wired to this center and rewire it so that sensations no longer have to meet the stress threshold to get to conscious awareness. It seems you can rewire by seeing the &amp;#034;thing&amp;#034; clearly or rerouting the signals thru the love center of the brain. There are lots of techniques out there to choose from and some will work better/faster than others for some people. Pick something you want to work on and start doing it....evaluate the results and keep going or change...repeat.&lt;br /&gt;Good Luck, and may the Ultimate find you&lt;br /&gt;~D</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:07:41 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579507</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T19:07:41Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579487</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Paul Kinkade:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;If someone attains to Actual Freedom without attaining arahatship, do they still experience fundamental suffering due to the Three Illusions?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is a loaded question as it presupposes the Three Illusions are actually illusions. However, that is not the case - everything is not dukkha, everything is not impermanent, and the emotions and the ego are indeed &amp;#034;Self&amp;#034;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Paul Kinkade:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Do they &amp;#034;cling&amp;#034; to the positive feelings brought on by Actual Freedom?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There are no positive feelings (as in emotions/moods/affective states) when actually free.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Paul Kinkade:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Can you become Actually Free without being an arahat?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes, in fact it would be easier.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Paul Kinkade:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;To the best of my knowledge, I have not crossed the A&amp;amp;P or entered any real meditation territory. I&amp;#039;m asking because I want to decide which path to follow. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On this forum you will get recommendations for the meditative path, of course. However the information you will receive here about actualism and actual freedom is not correct. If you&amp;#039;d like to learn more about actualism, I highly recommend reading the &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;actualfreedom&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;"&gt;AFT site&lt;/a&gt; and joining the &lt;a href="groups&amp;#x2e;yahoo&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;neo&amp;#x2f;groups&amp;#x2f;actualfreedom&amp;#x2f;"&gt;actual freedom yahoo group&lt;/a&gt;. It&amp;#039;s only fair - learn about the meditative paths on the meditative path forum, learn about the actualist path on the actualist path forum.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Paul Kinkade:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;If you answer, would you please list your experiences with these things? (Attained PCEs, attained AF, arahat, stream enterer, etc.)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes PCE, no AF, no Arahat, yes stream enterer (though I&amp;#039;d say that no longer really applies).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;- Claudiu</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:26:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579487</guid> <dc:creator>Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T18:26:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579391</link> <description>Some comments by Tommy McNally:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Tommy McNally I just finished reading Dan&amp;#039;s piece about Actualism and it&amp;#039;s probably the best, most honest and clearly written breakdown of the way things have gone for almost all of us who claimed &amp;#034;Actual Freedom&amp;#034; at one time or another. I haven&amp;#039;t spoken to him for a while and haven&amp;#039;t gone on the DhO for quite a while due to being busy with other projects, but his descriptions really hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways. There are slight differences in how it&amp;#039;s played out so far for me, but his overview and his comments on the emotional aspects are spot on. A really well written piece on a subject that caused a lot of us so-called &amp;#034;hardcore dharma&amp;#034; practitioners to question what we were doing and then go deeper again. If anyone&amp;#039;s interested in going down the same developmental axis, I think Wei Yu and Thusness&amp;#039; blog is one of best resources available right now, outside of looking deeper into specific systems and specializing to a certain extent. I&amp;#039;ll post more, gotta go out just now...&lt;br /&gt;September 21 at 5:26am · Unlike · 8&lt;br /&gt;Tommy McNally If you break Actualism down to a basic set of techniques and cut away all the verbiage of the website, you’re left with bare attentiveness to immediate sensate experience. At its most fundamental level, and regardless of what the self-proclaimed progenitor says, the entire practice leading to “an actual freedom from the human condition” is based on paying attention to what’s happening in the sensate field right now, but with a focus on the aggregate of feeling.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Through the application of the method which, to give credit where credit is due, Richard Parker developed - of asking “How Am I Experiencing This Moment Of Being Alive”, generally referred to as HAIETMOBA &amp;#x2013; the mind is inclined in a very specific way towards the way the body feels and how we, as an individual physical body, are experiencing the world at this very moment. It’s a powerful method when used correctly and the acronym makes it easy to remember, but it’s basically just a way of turning attention towards the sense doors.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Another aspect of AF practice is the dismantling of belief systems and what’s referred to as the “social identity”. By exploring how certain sensate experiences give rise to certain emotional states, one begins to see how deeply held beliefs and assumptions about the nature of reality are often false and lead to negative emotional states. Through taking all emotional experiences to bits, you can see how each has the same basic ‘flavour’ and how certain perceptual processes ‘colour’ them to be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. It’s almost a sort of self-psychotherapy and can be very intense, but ultimately worthwhile.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Something almost Tantric about AF is the emphasis on experiencing all sensate experience as pleasant, or focusing on the pleasant aspects of it so as to override the natural tendency of feeling to be positive, negative or neutral. Enjoying yourself is a large part of the basic method too and is actually very, very useful regardless of system. There’s also developing what’s referred to as “naivete”, which is basically a childlike wonder and sense of newness which occurs during the PCE and once this is established as the baseline. This is quite unique to AF as far as I know, but is a lot of fun to work with and does incline the mind towards experiencing in that way.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As I think about this, which I haven’t done for quite some time, I’m laughing at how simple a system of techniques this is for how amazing the outcome is. But at the same time, I’m kinda sad that the refusal of its founder to accept how close his basic model is to the Dharma prevents many from seeing how close they are to discovering something really special. At root, Actualism is just another method of development but its view is wrong on so many levels that I can’t begin to list them. This is simply my opinion on the matter, having practiced it with utter sincerity for quite some time I can speak from experience but, to this day, I still can’t see how people haven’t figured out that Richard is batshit insane and that his entire model collapses under scrutiny. Not only that, if one continues to apply those same techniques once so-called Actual Freedom happens, the entire thread unravels and the very foundation of it is seen to be empty! It becomes impossible to posit the existence of a physical body beyond its imputation, so to continue to think that an “actual world”, existing “out there” and apart from the rest of experience is seen to be complete ballocks.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is value in the basic techniques and mental postures, undoubtedly, but the bullshit and general weirdness of its spectacularly bearded founder ruins it. I could go into all the reasons why I consider this to be so, but it serves no practical value and diminishes the positives that could be gained from skilful application of the techniques with Right View.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don’t know if there’s anything else I can add here, I’m doing my usual and going off on tangents so I’ll sign off for the moment and add more if I think of anything useful.&lt;br /&gt;September 21 at 7:55am · Edited · Unlike · 12&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;    Tommy McNally I think Wei Yu&amp;#039;s done a lot more work on analyzing AF in comparison to realization within the Dharma and has put it far more clearly than I can. I always found it funny that Richard claimed that the material of Awakening to Reality wasn&amp;#039;t Buddhist and that he refused to say whether or not what Thusness described was what he called AF. I don&amp;#039;t believe that AF, or even the PCE itself, is related to recognizing rigpa as the whole of AF&amp;#039;s view is that, with the dissolution of subjectivity, one experiences the word from the side of the object; there&amp;#039;s still a very obvious reification of the physical form as being independent from consciousness and the other aggregates. If a person didn&amp;#039;t have any insight into anatta prior to hitting a PCE, the experience could suggest that one is experiencing things &amp;#039;as&amp;#039; the object of consciousness which is partly where I think a lot of the confusion comes in. If one has realized Anatta, the PCE has quite a different level of impact in comparison to when it&amp;#039;s experienced prior to this. It&amp;#039;s still amazing, don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, but it&amp;#039;s different in lots of very subtle ways which require close scrutiny of the PCE itself to really &amp;#039;get&amp;#039;. I also don&amp;#039;t think that AF or the achievement of it, whatever that actually is, is related to Stream Entry or can really be aligned with any of the Buddhism models due to there being way too many disparities at way too many levels. There are characteristics of it which could feasibly be correlated with certain attainments within Buddhism, but due to the continued belief that there is an objectively existing &amp;#034;actual world&amp;#034; it sort of cancels itself out. As Wei Yu says, there are similarities with the taste of Anatta but, in my experience, it&amp;#039;s not the same development trajectory.&lt;br /&gt;    September 21 at 6:58pm · Unlike · 5&lt;br /&gt;    Tommy McNally To clarify on what Lindsay&amp;#039;s referred to as &amp;#034;PCE focus&amp;#034;, I think it&amp;#039;s worth mentioning that it&amp;#039;s not actually the PCE itself which is the focus. It&amp;#039;s more about focusing on the characteristics of of the PCE, using previous experiences of it to recognize that those characteristics are always there as an integrated part of the field of experience itself. Using previous experience of the PCE to fuel practice is referred to in Actualism as &amp;#034;pure intent&amp;#034;, wherein one continually inclines towards experiencing the world in that way and with the intent to be &amp;#034;happy and harmless&amp;#034;. By aiming for PCE&amp;#039;s as a conscious goal, it short-circuits the attempt to incline the mind towards apperception by setting up a desire for things to be clearer or better than they are, which one then ends up inclining towards. It&amp;#039;s like a loop of desire; you know how amazing the PCE is but your own desire to recreate that experience is just a mental fabrication. It&amp;#039;s not possible to &amp;#034;imagine&amp;#034; a PCE because it occurs at a stage in the perceptual process prior to the formation of concepts, so any effort to recreate or fabricate it will ultimately fail. The memory of a PCE is a tool, but to aim for what you think a PCE is will lead in the opposite direction from where you want to be as it inclines the mind more towards the internal experience.&lt;br /&gt;    September 21 at 7:13pm · Edited · Like · 2</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:57:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579391</guid> <dc:creator>An Eternal Now</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T06:57:43Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579323</link> <description>&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;To the best of my knowledge, I have not crossed the A&amp;amp;P or entered any real meditation territory. I&amp;#039;m asking because I want to decide which path to follow.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My advice would be don&amp;#039;t worry about the ultimate. Just pick the a path that makes the intuitively appeals to you. Follow instructions in the short - medium term. If progress stalls before you are satisfied, then pick something else. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt; Tarin says that PCEs are centerless, which makes it sound like AF implies arahatship PLUS no affective feeling. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is sort of true.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AF is kind of like  MCTB Arahatship - affective feeling + messed up intellectual view of reality.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Due to the messed up view point AF falls short of ultimate liberation. They end up clinging to the objective. And to lack of affect. This lack of inclusivity limits liberation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here are daniel&amp;#039;s latest views on AF...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;integrateddaniel&amp;#x2e;info&amp;#x2f;my-experiments-in-actualism&amp;#x2f;"&gt;http://integrateddaniel.info/my-experiments-in-actualism/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you are not confused enough, and insist on being better informed, read this...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;5527670"&gt;http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5527670&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also note Daniel&amp;#039;s critera of Arahatship in the MCTB is based on overcoming subject / object duality. It does not line up with the most popular critera of 100% eardication of suffering per the buddhist conception. I don&amp;#039;t know if it matches up with Bill Hamilton&amp;#039;s conception.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;If you answer, would you please list your experiences with these things? (Attained PCEs, attained AF, arahat, stream enterer, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have personal experience with this stuff. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If it helps lend credibility, my early experience is listed here...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;2368325"&gt;http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2368325&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 02:29:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579323</guid> <dc:creator>(D Z) Dhru Val</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-11T02:29:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579254</link> <description>Check this out and see what you think...it might answer some questions or create new ones. - &lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;app&amp;#x2e;box&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;shared&amp;#x2f;sbyi64jrms"&gt;Actual Freedom and Buddhism.docx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Good luck,&lt;br /&gt;~D</description> <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:27:34 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579254</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-10T23:27:34Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Is Actual Freedom Ultimate?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579190</link> <description>If someone attains to Actual Freedom without attaining arahatship, do they still experience fundamental suffering due to the Three Illusions? Do they &amp;#034;cling&amp;#034; to the positive feelings brought on by Actual Freedom? In &lt;a href=""&gt;Daniel and Tarin discuss AF&lt;/a&gt;, Tarin says that PCEs are centerless, which makes it sound like AF implies arahatship PLUS no affective feeling. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before, arahatship sounded so profound and Ultimate (Bill Hamilton: &amp;#034;I have a treasure of infinite value&amp;#034;) but whenever someone brings up AF people start saying things like &amp;#034;I&amp;#039;m only a mere arahat&amp;#034; as if it weren&amp;#039;t really that gret.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Can you become Actually Free without being an arahat?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To the best of my knowledge, I have not crossed the A&amp;amp;P or entered any real meditation territory. I&amp;#039;m asking because I want to decide which path to follow. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you answer, would you please list your experiences with these things? (Attained PCEs, attained AF, arahat, stream enterer, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;Thanks&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Paul</description> <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:35:56 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579190</guid> <dc:creator>Paul Kinkade</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-10T22:35:56Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Ferguson - send in the Arhats</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5571667</link> <description>People in many places have a lot of pent up anger and emotion.  This kind of thing festers and builds energy if not dealt with.  Then some event or thing comes along that triggers that emotion.  The people in the area project their own emotions onto the situation, especially when there are few known facts to get in the way.  Logic often cannot combat runaway emotion.  Longterm, the way to go is overall improvement in the lives and situations of everyone involved.  This short term violence is just a symptom of an ongoing festering situation of that area and long term the festering of that area is just a symptom of humanity&amp;#039;s current condition.  A few arhats don&amp;#039;t have the power to fix it, everyone has to work on it together.  </description> <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:28:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5571667</guid> <dc:creator>Eva M Nie</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-08-21T18:28:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Ferguson - send in the Arhats</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5571619</link> <description>I&amp;#039;ve participated in a few conversations about the shooting in Ferguson.  It feels like madness swirling around everywhere.  My urge is compassion for all parties.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I had this thought: it would be cool if someone placed a pillow nearby the site of the shooting, and sat.  Just sat.  For about 40 days.  My fantasy is that it would be like Forest Gump running back and forth the country, but it would be just sitting.  I should do that instead of the 10-day I&amp;#039;m planning for December. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It would be good practice, and good publicity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I wish school was not in session.  Hmm, maybe to &amp;#039;just sit&amp;#039; here near home, under a sign that says &amp;#039;Ferguson&amp;#039;.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:25:58 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5571619</guid> <dc:creator>the real matt</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-08-21T15:25:58Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5565603</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;That meditation takes people on a path through uncontrollable disturbing experiences is something I was suprised (and disappointed!) to discover. The dualist perspective assumes that the self is going to be in control of the process - we are &amp;#034;just&amp;#034; going to remove dukkha. But it seems there is a very uncomfortable period where the self is there sometimes (experiencing things that might be best descrived as psychodelic or psychotic states) and not there at other times. This Dark Night typically seems to last several years but could last over a decade - I really see Daniel&amp;#039;s point about meditation needing a warning label! http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2013/12/bg-302-mental-illness-dark-night/&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I wonder if some of the intense insight practices that seem to allow rapid progress toward a dualist perspective are missing some of the aspects of the Buddhist teachings (gradual training, morality, insight potentially after concentration skills etc). The podcast above touches on this.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks for your message.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;I suspect that much of the problem with &amp;#039;just trying to remove dukkha&amp;#039; is that although  part of us is saying that, another part of us is clinging to aspects of dukkha.  I see that a lot and have certainly been guilty of it myself, the idea that you can kind of live with one foot on one side and the other foot on the other side and somehow get all the things you like from both sides and none of the bad things.  Like people might want to keep all the things and  habits they like in the majority of their day the same and then think they can sit on the mat for a bit and become enlightened without drastically changing their attitude in the rest of their life.  But it doesn&amp;#039;t work that way, enlightenment is not just about the mat, it&amp;#039;s about your whole life and everything you think and do every second of the day.  Cling to your old life and habits too much and you are going to have a hard time and yet I think most of us do tend to cling to at least some of it!  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is a weird thing about zen or Buddhism or whatever you want to call it that I am sure many have noticed and I&amp;#039;ve seen it mentioned and that is if you try too hard, then it seems to backfire. It&amp;#039;s like holding a butterfly, too much grip and you squish it.  Maybe it&amp;#039;s because fixating and trying to control rigid outcomes does not allow enough wiggle room for millions of factors that our conscious minds do not consider when deciding on desired fixed outcomes in the first place.  Perhaps that is why it seems to work better to relax and kind of surf along perhaps having a general goal and working towards it in general but not being too rigid and not fixating too much on every little specific, instead just paying attention to the current balance and situation.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyway, it&amp;#039;s often said to &amp;#039;let go,&amp;#039; but at least for myself I&amp;#039;ve found that in order to do that, it helps a lot to learn about myself well enough to have a decent understanding of what I am clinging to in the first place and often it is subtle little things like desires for specific outcomes or lifestyles.  If you notice your clinging, that can help to lessen it and take some of the power out of it.  But I&amp;#039;ve never seen anyone that has no preferences at all, does not care about outcome at all.  Even if you give charity to someone, trim a rose bush, or hike in the desert, you  are probably hoping to help someone, make the bush healthier or whatever.  Is it possible to even get off the couch and do anything without some hopes for outcome?  Even as you put your foot on the floor, you are probably hoping with some part of you that you won&amp;#039;t step on a tack as you put your foot down.  I am not sure it is to have zero goals and still do anything.  Maybe the goal is more like to understand the desires better and loosen the grip of attachment enough to no longer be rigid about it.  When you are less tied down, you feel lighter. </description> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:07:51 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5565603</guid> <dc:creator>Eva M Nie</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-08-08T17:07:51Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5565588</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Not Tao:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Personally, I was never very interested in enlightenment until very recently when I had a set of experiences that showed me I didn&amp;#039;t have to live in such a negative state of consiousness all the time.  Naturally, this put me at odds with the whole idea of &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034; and anatta and self.  I didn&amp;#039;t give two damns what I was, I just wanted to go back to feeling better haha.  I&amp;#039;m starting to see the links between the teachings and my experiences, though.  At this point in time, I think the benefits are related to understandings about experience.  Once the novelty wears off and you keep seeing how the good states come and go in spite of your practice, it becomes clear that there&amp;#039;s something you aren&amp;#039;t quite seeing clearly.  It&amp;#039;s tempting to think of meditation as being similar to, say, playing the piano - where you just need to do it enough and then it becomes effortless and you&amp;#039;re in a state of nirvana all the time - but really it seems to work where sometimes it seems completely effortless, and other times impossible.  When it&amp;#039;s effortless you wonder how you ever had problems, and when it&amp;#039;s hard you wonder how you ever got anywhere.  Concentration practice works more like playing the piano, and while that&amp;#039;s a very important part, it seems like effortlessness comes from seeing a specific aspect of experience rather than training up some kind of control of experience.  In fact, efforlessness comes from letting go, and that&amp;#039;s not something you can control very well.  Instead, seeing through the negative emotional states into &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034; seems to allow it to happen instantly.  This truth is purely experiential, though.  Buddhism will never explain any facts about the universe, it just points out the key to an effortless living experience.  It&amp;#039;s not &amp;#034;do I exist or not?&amp;#034;, it&amp;#039;s more &amp;#034;what can I control?&amp;#034; which buddhism says is nothing in particular.  This, I think, leads to the realization that there is nothing in the middle of experience &amp;#034;directing traffic&amp;#034;, only the cloud of experience itself.  This lack of a physical center creates a more clear experience because there is nothing extra added to the sensations, and the clarity results in equanimity - seeing everything as equal.  This equanimity is the goal, to me.  Some people are after truth, so them might stop practicing once they find convincing evidence of &amp;#034;no self&amp;#034;, but the whole point of seeing it is, i think, to apply it to all of experience until the concept of effort is removed completely.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m still a newb, though, and I change my mind every week about things, so don&amp;#039;t take any of this too seriously - just my 2 cents...&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Not Tao,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sorry for the slow reply. I did read your message some time ago but needed to find time for a considred response. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I buy the idea that subjective truths are going to be relative. Relative to human experience. There seems to be a tendency for spiritual practitioners to leap to universal truths, for example monism. There are many experiences that seem to be purely subjective but are sometimes discussed as if they are objective e.g. OBE, past lives etc. In some ways it seems awakening is exchanging one set of illusions for another. But those who have made the leap seem to say the new set is much improved!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That meditation takes people on a path through uncontrollable disturbing experiences is something I was suprised (and disappointed!) to discover. The dualist perspective assumes that the self is going to be in control of the process - we are &amp;#034;just&amp;#034; going to remove dukkha. But it seems there is a very uncomfortable period where the self is there sometimes (experiencing things that might be best descrived as psychodelic or psychotic states) and not there at other times. This Dark Night typically seems to last several years but could last over a decade - I really see Daniel&amp;#039;s point about meditation needing a warning label! http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2013/12/bg-302-mental-illness-dark-night/&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I wonder if some of the intense insight practices that seem to allow rapid progress toward a dualist perspective are missing some of the aspects of the Buddhist teachings (gradual training, morality, insight potentially after concentration skills etc). The podcast above touches on this.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks for your message.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; </description> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:56:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5565588</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-08-08T15:56:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562469</link> <description>Personally, I was never very interested in enlightenment until very recently when I had a set of experiences that showed me I didn&amp;#039;t have to live in such a negative state of consiousness all the time.  Naturally, this put me at odds with the whole idea of &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034; and anatta and self.  I didn&amp;#039;t give two damns what I was, I just wanted to go back to feeling better haha.  I&amp;#039;m starting to see the links between the teachings and my experiences, though.  At this point in time, I think the benefits are related to understandings about experience.  Once the novelty wears off and you keep seeing how the good states come and go in spite of your practice, it becomes clear that there&amp;#039;s something you aren&amp;#039;t quite seeing clearly.  It&amp;#039;s tempting to think of meditation as being similar to, say, playing the piano - where you just need to do it enough and then it becomes effortless and you&amp;#039;re in a state of nirvana all the time - but really it seems to work where sometimes it seems completely effortless, and other times impossible.  When it&amp;#039;s effortless you wonder how you ever had problems, and when it&amp;#039;s hard you wonder how you ever got anywhere.  Concentration practice works more like playing the piano, and while that&amp;#039;s a very important part, it seems like effortlessness comes from seeing a specific aspect of experience rather than training up some kind of control of experience.  In fact, efforlessness comes from letting go, and that&amp;#039;s not something you can control very well.  Instead, seeing through the negative emotional states into &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034; seems to allow it to happen instantly.  This truth is purely experiential, though.  Buddhism will never explain any facts about the universe, it just points out the key to an effortless living experience.  It&amp;#039;s not &amp;#034;do I exist or not?&amp;#034;, it&amp;#039;s more &amp;#034;what can I control?&amp;#034; which buddhism says is nothing in particular.  This, I think, leads to the realization that there is nothing in the middle of experience &amp;#034;directing traffic&amp;#034;, only the cloud of experience itself.  This lack of a physical center creates a more clear experience because there is nothing extra added to the sensations, and the clarity results in equanimity - seeing everything as equal.  This equanimity is the goal, to me.  Some people are after truth, so them might stop practicing once they find convincing evidence of &amp;#034;no self&amp;#034;, but the whole point of seeing it is, i think, to apply it to all of experience until the concept of effort is removed completely.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m still a newb, though, and I change my mind every week about things, so don&amp;#039;t take any of this too seriously - just my 2 cents...</description> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:17:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562469</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-30T15:17:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562126</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;bernd the broter:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Mark:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is something a little unsettling about making the end of personal suffering the ultimate goal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why? What is it?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It could be denying our interdependence. That while there is suffering you are part of it by inaction or action.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The way I understand the end of suffering is more related to the end of the second dart - rather than absolute end of suffering. Which leaves the question of what to do after reaching that goal. Which means the end of suffering as the ultimate goal is not the right one.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On another point, the non-dual view does not leave room for &amp;#034;self&amp;#034; but the behavior of enlightened people indicates there is still an ego at work. I guess the non-dual view means the ego still manifests but is not experienced in the same way as a dual view. Daniel speaks of there being no free will. But I&amp;#039;m not sure what his take on intentions are.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:17:15 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562126</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-29T11:17:15Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562093</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Mark:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is something a little unsettling about making the end of personal suffering the ultimate goal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why? What is it?</description> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:16:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562093</guid> <dc:creator>bernd the broter</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-29T10:16:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562023</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;&amp;#40;D Z&amp;#41; Dhru Val:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Mark=:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;. I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it is reasonable to make any claim that a non-dual view is more real or truthful than a dual view. I think there is an underlying assumption by many people that the non-dual view is the &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034;. It does not seem to help explain things like quantum effects - which would indicate there are other more complete views out there. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Realization is not just a view, it is something experential.  Deep realization involves experentially seening the unreality of all relative phenomenon, without positing any sort of ultimate reality. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All views and concepts are a subset of relative phenomenon, so ultimately untrue.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Functionally there are still views that are more or less useful for doing things or expalinging other relativistic phenomenon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In so far as a view is useful it can be said to be funcationally &amp;#039;true&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When it comes to ending suffering a view of emptiness and annata is useful.&lt;br /&gt;If you want to launch a rocket to the moon, then other truths maybe useful. &lt;br /&gt;If you want to charm your sweetheart, then there are some other views still.&lt;br /&gt;If you want to be a chess player, then there is a difference set of useful views.&lt;br /&gt;etc...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We can have a very wide diversity of views, and can develop the skill to adopt an appropriate mode in a given circumstance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is no need for one theory of everything, since all theorys are ultimately untrue. But rather it is possible to have the diversity of views and views on how they fit together.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sorry if this is confusing, can elaborate a bit more if there is interest. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Dhru,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That makes sense thanks. I do think there are many people who believe the non-dual view is giving some &amp;#034;ultimate truth&amp;#034;. It seems neither of us would agree with that. I don&amp;#039;t really need to worry about those other people either I guess &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I agree that there is a huge difference between an intellectual understanding of something and an experience of the same thing. The intellectual understanding is perhaps useful for prioritizing things e.g. is it worth learning to drive a car now or investing the money in something else.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It makes sense to me that a non-dual view is more appropriate for not suffering an attachment. At the same time I guess people have got to that point through a dual view too but that is probably out of the scope of this thread.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have the impression that the non-dual view is permanent for Daniel i.e. he can&amp;#039;t go back to a dual view.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think there is a desire to find encompasing views, for example Daniel would like to do that for spiritual maps I think. Ken Wilber has made a fine effort to do that for &amp;#034;everything&amp;#034;. Wilber&amp;#039;s view is a bit like a meta-view it would help understand apsects that are missing from particular views. You are right we have a diversity of views whether encompassing views exist or not.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can see that the maps can be worth exploring for their own sake. The path can also be a way out of a miserable situation for some people. I&amp;#039;m certainly fascinated by exploring experience through meditation. I&amp;#039;m also a bit wary of focusing on that as the most effective way to reduce suffering . I have the impression the Buddhist teachings miss some key points for the lay person. For example not understanding evolution, the interdependence of technology, culture and the individual. I&amp;#039;m coming more to a conclusion that the path is one aspect that deserves to be developed but within a framework of engagement with the world. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is something a little unsettling about making the end of personal suffering the ultimate goal.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:23:53 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5562023</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-29T07:23:53Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561993</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Mark=:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;. I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it is reasonable to make any claim that a non-dual view is more real or truthful than a dual view. I think there is an underlying assumption by many people that the non-dual view is the &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034;. It does not seem to help explain things like quantum effects - which would indicate there are other more complete views out there. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Realization is not just a view, it is something experential.  Deep realization involves experentially seening the unreality of all relative phenomenon, without positing any sort of ultimate reality. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All views and concepts are a subset of relative phenomenon, so ultimately untrue.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Functionally there are still views that are more or less useful for doing things or expalinging other relativistic phenomenon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In so far as a view is useful it can be said to be funcationally &amp;#039;true&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When it comes to ending suffering a view of emptiness and annata is useful.&lt;br /&gt;If you want to launch a rocket to the moon, then other truths maybe useful. &lt;br /&gt;If you want to charm your sweetheart, then there are some other views still.&lt;br /&gt;If you want to be a chess player, then there is a difference set of useful views.&lt;br /&gt;etc...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We can have a very wide diversity of views, and can develop the skill to adopt an appropriate mode in a given circumstance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is no need for one theory of everything, since all theorys are ultimately untrue. But rather it is possible to have the diversity of views and views on how they fit together.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sorry if this is confusing, can elaborate a bit more if there is interest. </description> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:14:07 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561993</guid> <dc:creator>(D Z) Dhru Val</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-29T06:14:07Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561820</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Andreas Thef:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Mark:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I&amp;#039;m not saying that there is no value in the pursuit of a different perception of the world - there clearly is. I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it is reasonable to make any claim that a non-dual view is more real or truthful than a dual view. I think there is an underlying assumption by many people that the non-dual view is the &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034;. It does not seem to help explain things like quantum effects - which would indicate there are other more complete views out there. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Mark,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think Daniel touches on that topic eloquently in his recent &lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;youtube&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;watch&amp;#x3f;v&amp;#x3d;hNg-gps9O0w"&gt;BATGP interview&lt;/a&gt;. As far as I understand, enlightenment does not tell you anything about the relative truths of the world (or at least not as much as we sometimes wished for). But it tells you how they come into being and how they are interrelated and -dependent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think another pointer to an answer can be found in this &lt;a href="www&amp;#x2e;dharmaseed&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;teacher&amp;#x2f;169&amp;#x2f;talk&amp;#x2f;15836&amp;#x2f;"&gt;excellent Stephen Batchelor talk&lt;/a&gt; on dependent arising. According to the buddha consciousness and every perceiving, seperating, dissecting and naming that arises with it (of which &amp;#034;quantum physics&amp;#034; ist just one example) is no seperate entity but is dependent on all other arisings. It simply does not exist in and of itself - I guess that&amp;#039;s what&amp;#039;s called &amp;#034;empty&amp;#034;. At least that&amp;#039;s what I imagine it to be like.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the above linked interview Daniel says something like: there&amp;#039;s an end to the spiritual path but no end to the understanding and perception of our day to day (relative) reality.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope I&amp;#039;m not missing the point or misquoting someone...&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Andreas,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That interview with Daniel is really good - his laughter is contageous. It was a long interview but worth watching - a lesson in right speech in some ways too, as they pretty much politely disagree on everything &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To answer my question - Daniel does a good job of selling the non-dual view as much more comfortable. The idea of the perception/awareness being with the object is fascinating.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think you are referring to how Daniel states the non-dual understanding of the world does not keep evolving after 4th path. But the other streams of development e.g. depth of jhanas or interpersonal skills which have endless potential for exploration/refinement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;d be interested to hear about the development of the mundane and the supramundane in some type of harmony (or not). It is a big topic for the layperson, much less for a monk. Developing and balancing those aspects would be very interesting to hear about.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:35:45 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561820</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-28T19:35:45Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561722</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Andreas Thef:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Mark:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I&amp;#039;m not saying that there is no value in the pursuit of a different perception of the world - there clearly is. I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it is reasonable to make any claim that a non-dual view is more real or truthful than a dual view. I think there is an underlying assumption by many people that the non-dual view is the &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034;. It does not seem to help explain things like quantum effects - which would indicate there are other more complete views out there. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Mark,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think Daniel touches on that topic eloquently in his recent &lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;youtube&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;watch&amp;#x3f;v&amp;#x3d;hNg-gps9O0w"&gt;BATGP interview&lt;/a&gt;. As far as I understand, enlightenment does not tell you anything about the relative truths of the world (or at least not as much as we sometimes wished for). But it tells you how they come into being and how they are interrelated and -dependent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think another pointer to an answer can be found in this &lt;a href="www&amp;#x2e;dharmaseed&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;teacher&amp;#x2f;169&amp;#x2f;talk&amp;#x2f;15836&amp;#x2f;"&gt;excellent Stephen Batchelor talk&lt;/a&gt; on dependent arising. According to the buddha consciousness and every perceiving, seperating, dissecting and naming that arises with it (of which &amp;#034;quantum physics&amp;#034; ist just one example) is no seperate entity but is dependent on all other arisings. It simply does not exist in and of itself - I guess that&amp;#039;s what&amp;#039;s called &amp;#034;empty&amp;#034;. At least that&amp;#039;s what I imagine it to be like.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the above linked interview Daniel says something like: there&amp;#039;s an end to the spiritual path but no end to the understanding and perception of our day to day (relative) reality.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope I&amp;#039;m not missing the point or misquoting someone...&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Andreas,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks for the links! The link to SB talk is not working but I could grab the URL. Both are a bit long to look at now but I will take a look.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It would be interesting to have a quantum physicist who is enlightened dumb this down for mere mortels &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt; One of the weird things about quantum physics seems to be that it starts to play with time e.g. an observation in the future can change an event in the past. From the little I&amp;#039;ve seen the non-dual view does not have too much to say about time. There is the notion of endless reincarnations and the possibility to go back and observe them, I wonder if the Buddha understood evolution but decided not to mention it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t want to fall into the trap of using quantum physics to validate some particular view. I raised it as an example of something that might indicate a non-dual perspective is still holding on to assumptions like the dual world view. But I&amp;#039;m already well out of my depth.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is this idea that after an A&amp;amp;P event you could be pretty much on a roller coaster ride - the exit being enlightenment. Daniel&amp;#039;s advice about trying to manage the timing of the Dark Night led to my current line of thought. I was thinking well maybe it would be wise to manage the A&amp;amp;P also i.e. get on some solid moral ground before taking the ride. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Daniel&amp;#039;s spiritual journey began very young (15 years old I think) and he did not seem to have a choice to engage in it or not. His book is full of great advice to help other people who did not have a choice (and those who choose to) get through the experience with less collatoral damage. The book is obviously not just that but I felt that was a strong motivation for Daniel which helps make for the unique style of the book.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Those who are enlightened certainly don&amp;#039;t say it was a waste of time. But then again they have a massive amount invested in it too. That sort of life choice may not leave space for regrets (a little like having children). The objective points we can discuss are how did that path help them in this lifetime. Then we could look at the benefits and ask if there are other ways of achieving the same benefits and whether those other paths are more or less effective.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If I&amp;#039;m honest with myself I think the &amp;#034;end of suffering&amp;#034; is a strong motivation. That is not a very glorious objective, rooted in the ego as it is. This forum has raised a lot of questions because it spells out that enlightenment does not equal end of suffering.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rather than investing enormous effort in achieving a non-dual view that same effort may be more wisely invested in morality. That is the question I guess. Of course one does not exclude the other but I think the perspective may change the priorities for practice.&lt;br /&gt; </description> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:34:22 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561722</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-28T14:34:22Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561699</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Mark:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I&amp;#039;m not saying that there is no value in the pursuit of a different perception of the world - there clearly is. I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it is reasonable to make any claim that a non-dual view is more real or truthful than a dual view. I think there is an underlying assumption by many people that the non-dual view is the &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034;. It does not seem to help explain things like quantum effects - which would indicate there are other more complete views out there. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Mark,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think Daniel touches on that topic eloquently in his recent &lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;youtube&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;watch&amp;#x3f;v&amp;#x3d;hNg-gps9O0w"&gt;BATGP interview&lt;/a&gt;. As far as I understand, enlightenment does not tell you anything about the relative truths of the world (or at least not as much as we sometimes wished for). But it tells you how they come into being and how they are interrelated and -dependent.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think another pointer to an answer can be found in this &lt;a href="www&amp;#x2e;dharmaseed&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;teacher&amp;#x2f;169&amp;#x2f;talk&amp;#x2f;15836&amp;#x2f;"&gt;excellent Stephen Batchelor talk&lt;/a&gt; on dependent arising. According to the buddha consciousness and every perceiving, seperating, dissecting and naming that arises with it (of which &amp;#034;quantum physics&amp;#034; ist just one example) is no seperate entity but is dependent on all other arisings. It simply does not exist in and of itself - I guess that&amp;#039;s what&amp;#039;s called &amp;#034;empty&amp;#034;. At least that&amp;#039;s what I imagine it to be like.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the above linked interview Daniel says something like: there&amp;#039;s an end to the spiritual path but no end to the understanding and perception of our day to day (relative) reality.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope I&amp;#039;m not missing the point or misquoting someone...</description> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:43:54 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561699</guid> <dc:creator>Andreas Thef</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-28T13:43:54Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561651</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;bernd the broter:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I think you are wasting your time. All these questions drop away as soon as you get some insight into the 3 characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is a reason why it&amp;#039;s called truth though:&lt;br /&gt;When you get insight, this means that you discover some aspect of your experience which you overlooked before.&lt;br /&gt;Then, it seems to be quite obvious, and you start to wonder how you could have not noticed it before.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you want to call it truth probably depends on your temper, character, culture, or whatever philosophy of truth you have subscribed to.&lt;br /&gt;(I like to call it &amp;#039;fixing a bug&amp;#039;, which is just as arbitrary, but much less popular and maybe a bit misleading.)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Morality is something enlightened people still need to keep progressing in and I think that is at the heart of my question. So I don&amp;#039;t believe these questions drop away.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 3Cs are also evident from a dualist point of view. Obviously not experienced in the same way.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t particularly want to call it truth, I&amp;#039;m implying that is a bit of an overstatement. If you are not familiar with Wilber&amp;#039;s work then it&amp;#039;s highly recommended (by Daniel too I think). Viewing the spiritual path from that perspective seems to point out some missing pieces of the puzzle.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You seem to be supporting the idea that it is mainly about &amp;#034;fixing a bug&amp;#034; in how one experiences the world. That can certainly be a big deal. But I&amp;#039;m not sure it should be the biggest deal. There are plenty of morality bugs that might deserve more urgent attention.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In any case thanks for wasting your time with me &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:51:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561651</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-28T10:51:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561639</link> <description>I think you are wasting your time. All these questions drop away as soon as you get some insight into the 3 characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is a reason why it&amp;#039;s called truth though:&lt;br /&gt;When you get insight, this means that you discover some aspect of your experience which you overlooked before.&lt;br /&gt;Then, it seems to be quite obvious, and you start to wonder how you could have not noticed it before.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you want to call it truth probably depends on your temper, character, culture, or whatever philosophy of truth you have subscribed to.&lt;br /&gt;(I like to call it &amp;#039;fixing a bug&amp;#039;, which is just as arbitrary, but much less popular and maybe a bit misleading.)</description> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:24:03 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561639</guid> <dc:creator>bernd the broter</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-28T10:24:03Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Delusion &amp; Illusion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561612</link> <description>I hope by posting in this part of the forum I&amp;#039;m not risking offending anyone as those who would be offended would not read this part of the forum.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;MCBT has been very influential is asking what I&amp;#039;m really looking for. It is a bit circular in some ways as someone who is not awakened cannot understand what being awakened is like but they will decide to try and become awakened based on some idea of what awakening is like. I guess in the end we have some fuzzy half baked ideas about enlightenment and that is the best we can do to either be motivated to pursue it or not.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I suspect that the ego is a huge part of why many people get onto the spiritual path. There is something deep inside of use that wants to be unique, outstanding, hold some secret. Some cults are an example of tapping into those needs very effectively.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If we all had a non-dual view of the world and someone found a way of uncovering a dual view of the world and it was difficult to rach that understanding then I suspect a minority of people would invest to discover the &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034; of the dual view.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not saying that there is no value in the pursuit of a different perception of the world - there clearly is. I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it is reasonable to make any claim that a non-dual view is more real or truthful than a dual view. I think there is an underlying assumption by many people that the non-dual view is the &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034;. It does not seem to help explain things like quantum effects - which would indicate there are other more complete views out there. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Without a non-dual view we can make very good claims as to why morality is a wise choice. We can assume many peole who led a very &amp;#034;good life&amp;#034; did not have a non-dual view of the world.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One of the key insights of the non-dual view seems to be a deep realization that there is no object named self. I&amp;#039;ve really struggled with this as I just don&amp;#039;t see how the dual view of the world can coherently claim there is an object named self either. In the dual view of the world the self is clealry not independent. Ken Wilber&amp;#039;s Theory of Everything with four quadrants representing various perspectives seems relevant. The non-dual view seems like a thorough explanation of the individual subjective, the dual view an individual objective view. This still leaves out two quadrants from Wilber&amp;#039;s model. It seems both the non-dual and dual can be used to reason similar conclusions as to those other quadrants - I&amp;#039;ve not heard of insights into those quadrants by those who would be enlightened.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can see this thread risks to go in random directions &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;d be interested in focusing on a central issue - the notion of self. We all use the term &amp;#034;I&amp;#034; and those who are enlightened still use that term too - can I have another scoop of ice-cream etc. From a non-dual perspective it might be tempting to think that anyone else who uses the term self is referring to an object that exists. If that is the case they should ask the dualist to point out the self. Certainly many people have not been asked to point it out or have not thought about it so they may reply &amp;#034;my body, my brain etc&amp;#034; but I suspect most dualists who have thought through the question would answer that there is no object named self, that self is a concept useful for functioning in the world. For example there is no object called time either but we use the concept.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;From a dualist point of view we are all interconnected - simple concepts like the &amp;#034;butterfly effect&amp;#034; claim that. From a dualist point of view the self concept includes genetics, environment, education, society, technology, subjective experience etc. Of course there are dualists who may not have that notion of self but I suspect more due to a lack of education than a lack of insight from the dualist view point.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can see the non-dualist may say ah yes but you have not experienced non-self and that is true if it means experiencing the world as non-dual. But if it means behaving in the world as if there is only non-self then I think many dualists do that - though not all the time. Then again the experiences shared on this forum would indicate that an enlightened one does not behave in accordance with non-self all the time either.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So I&amp;#039;m wondering if the benefits of enlightenment are more associated with the progress along the path rather than the end point when what has to be done is done.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can see how someone who is not enlightened wants that secret - a bit like behaving well before christmas day. I can see how someone with a strong calling to &amp;#034;find the truth&amp;#034; may pursue the spiritual path - until it&amp;#039;s end I hope for them. I can also see why someone who is not worried about it does not need to start worrying. It is more confusing being somewhere in the middle.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This line of thinking got me more interested in the practices in regards to morality. By starting this topic I hope someone will point out the problems in my reasoninng - using right speech if I&amp;#039;m really lucky &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:24:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561612</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-28T09:24:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: The fatal flaw of the Dharma Overground.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561126</link> <description>In May 2013 I realized in a North Carolina DMV line the emptiness of inherent existence. Hell can give off light as well as heat.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2014 04:02:00 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5561126</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-27T04:02:00Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: What is the goal, really?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5560906</link> <description>I&amp;#039;ve not yet reached stream entry, and I&amp;#039;ve been practicing only 3 years, but everything Jake says here resonates with me. For starters, I had debilitating phobias. I was afraid of flying in commercial airplanes, for example, and no medication or therapy helped. But meditation actually cured the jiffers. I can walk onto any plane, take refuge in the here-and-now of the breath energy flowing, and fly across the country in sweet peace. Even if I get nothing more than this out of the practice, it will have been worth the effort and even the Dark Night, for it is worth the expenditure of every moment of present awareness, period.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Autonomy--this benefit is HUGE! The practice throws everything codependent (in the neg sense) into sharp relief, whereupon dropping it is natural. CCC, I started practicing when I was 47. It was only then that I finally grew up and let go of certain unhealthful ways of overrelyhing on others, in practice, in marriage, in general--I let go so thoroughly, so subterraneanly, that I didn&amp;#039;t even quite realize I had done so until I read Jake&amp;#039;s accounting of &amp;#034;autonomy.&amp;#034;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:36:42 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5560906</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-26T10:36:42Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: In the Name of Enlightenment - Sex Scandal in Religion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5554307</link> <description>yeah.  what a saint.  i be there were a few who wanted to open the doors to enlightenment for that young thang.  sogul rinpoche had power over her though and abused it. despicable.  but she / they are adults and not blameless.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:59:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5554307</guid> <dc:creator>tom moylan</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-08T06:59:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>In the Name of Enlightenment - Sex Scandal in Religion</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5553737</link> <description>&lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;youtube&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;watch&amp;#x3f;v&amp;#x3d;yWhIivvmMnk"&gt;In the Name of Enlightenment - Sex Scandal in Religion&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:39:52 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5553737</guid> <dc:creator>Change A.</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-06T20:39:52Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552678</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Anonymous Coward:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;A confusion between investigating the 3C (esp. anicca?) on the cushion and losing motivation for acttivities off-the-cushion / in the real world.  The extreme version of this confusion is very much akin to &amp;#034;Why bother getting up in the morning if we are all going to die later?&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Bleedthrough&amp;#034; between the DN and everyday life, which could create a vicious circle&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nihilistic content/thoughts feeding the sensations that feed the thoughts...yes a vicious circle. Noting thinking to stop the content can be useful. Just letting the sensations be sensations without adding to them. Hard to do at times especially when the content tells you it is permanent, it is you and everything is only dukkha.&lt;br /&gt;~D</description> <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:57:05 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552678</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-02T17:57:05Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552668</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Anonymous Coward:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I therefore go on a limb and propose that &amp;#034;treatments&amp;#034; used for depression could help with the DN. &lt;br /&gt;Three things primarily come to mind &lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;Exercising helps prevent and cure depression. [1] [2]  So go out for a run, for a walk. Swim. &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Maintaining relationships also helps, esp. with loved ones.  So take that long walk in the woods or on the beach with your sweet-heart&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Meditation and mindfullness will help too. Identifying the sensations that make up the DN, your moods, your temper, etc. is the first step to keep their &amp;#034;bad&amp;#034; effects &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have had good luck with SAM-e, vitamin D supplements thru many a dark night/and several paths and recently added 5-HTP and High quality CoQ10. I like vitamins too....esp the ones we are usually low on. A blood test can check for low levels.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Janusz Welin:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;3. Does she suggest that patients stop meditation if they hit the dark night or to push through.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I recommend moving thru it skillfully and with added diligence. I usually double my practice time and try to really see the dukkha without aversion to it. What sucks is that while in it, it doesn&amp;#039;t feel like any progress is happening but it is....the more times thru the more you see this is true.&lt;br /&gt;Good luck,&lt;br /&gt;~D</description> <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 16:11:49 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552668</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-02T16:11:49Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552637</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Janusz Welin:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I was going to start a new thread but I actually came back to DhO to ask questions that stem from this article.  The writer fails to ask (or perhaps posit/ attempt to answer) several important questions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Hi Janusz,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Your questions go the heart of the issue.  Though I have no statistics, I can offer personnal (hence anecdotal and biased) answers to some of them. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I consider myself in the DN from a dharma stand-point, following a 10-day Goenka retreat in late Apr-14. See &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;5544273"&gt;http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5544273&lt;/a&gt;  for more details. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More important maybe are the added psychological factors of &lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;Rather stressful work environment (lots to do, short deadlines, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Some family-related stress (basically, two dying grand-mothers + need for medical assistance to have a child)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Family history of depression (the real, medical kind, with suicide attempts, not just &amp;#034;feeling down&amp;#034;)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;Following some research last week, I very much see the DN as a kind of depression that can be very mild to full-blown depending on the individual. Possible causes -- which likely reinforce each other -- could be :&lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;Some predisposition to depression in the individual him/herself (genetic link?)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;The individual feeling down or having a hard time &amp;#034;off the cushion&amp;#034; when entering the AP / DN&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;A confusion between investigating the 3C (esp. anicca?) on the cushion and losing motivation for acttivities off-the-cushion / in the real world.  The extreme version of this confusion is very much akin to &amp;#034;Why bother getting up in the morning if we are all going to die later?&amp;#034;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&amp;#034;Bleedthrough&amp;#034; between the DN and everyday life, which could create a vicious circle&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;I therefore go on a limb and propose that &amp;#034;treatments&amp;#034; used for depression could help with the DN. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Janusz Welin:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2. What are the treatments they are exploring.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Three things primarily come to mind &lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;Exercising helps prevent and cure depression. [1] [2]  So go out for a run, for a walk. Swim. &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Maintaining relationships also helps, esp. with loved ones.  So take that long walk in the woods or on the beach with your sweet-heart&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Meditation and mindfullness will help too. Identifying the sensations that make up the DN, your moods, your temper, etc. is the first step to keep their &amp;#034;bad&amp;#034; effects &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Janusz Welin:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;3. Does she suggest that patients stop meditation if they hit the dark night or to push through.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;See above &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Janusz Welin:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;4. Does there seem to be any correlation to types of paths and incidences of the Dark Night, e.g., does &amp;#034;dry vipassana&amp;#034; tend to produce more DN experiences than moving through the vipassana Jhanas?  Do people who have a solid metta practice tend to have less of a DN experience. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;ll suggest that strong metta before, and during, the DN, does ease the pains and might very well speed up the process. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Janusz Welin:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am starting to see conservative teachers who have long railed against insight practice use these issues as proof of their claims that insight practice is not for laypeople.  These are teachers who listen closely to monks who are more or less fundamentalist and who feel that the Burmese influence on Buddhism is destructive. Ajan Geoff comes to mind. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Not for laypeople&amp;#034; is most likely the wrong way of looking at it. However, some caution should be taken. For example (not necessarily all at the same time) a) guidance from an experienced teacher, b) support from family, friends or community, c) very careful progress if / when one is &amp;#034;feeling down&amp;#034; or in periods of stress, d) clear distinction between &amp;#034;on the cushion&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;off the cushion&amp;#034;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hope it helps,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AC&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[1] &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;ncbi&amp;#x2e;nlm&amp;#x2e;nih&amp;#x2e;gov&amp;#x2f;pubmed&amp;#x2f;24938566"&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24938566&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br /&gt;[2] &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;ncbi&amp;#x2e;nlm&amp;#x2e;nih&amp;#x2e;gov&amp;#x2f;pubmed&amp;#x2f;24139780"&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24139780&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:47:10 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552637</guid> <dc:creator>Anonymous Coward</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-07-02T11:47:10Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552282</link> <description>Hi Janusz,&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;You raise many points that have been close to my heart for the last year or more. Rather than answer each of your questions sequentially, I thought I would give some personal experiences relating to points 1 and 4:&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;For starters, I first crossed the A&amp;amp;P on a meditation retreat some 14 years ago doing a mix of occasional noting practice (actually just my own version of Gendlin’s ‘focusing’ technique) and the Brahmaviharas. The A&amp;amp;P was spectacular and the DN that followed threw up enough stuff to shatter any illusions I held of a ‘perfect’ childhood, which started a deeper search for Truth. It was a formative experience and set the marker for anything since. Not knowing about maps or stages of insight, I returned a year later for ‘more of the same’ (i.e. A&amp;amp;P fun) but instead sat almost foetal in the worst DN I had experienced to date. I mention all this because I had little idea about ‘vipassana’ practice and yet experienced many of the insight stages (falling short of SE) and strong DN. Whether this was due to my personality type or mode of practice, I don’t know!&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Fast forward to last year and I was fortunate enough to get a three month sabbatical from work and undertake a long retreat. Deeply inspired from Daniel’s book MCTB I resolved to work diligently using noting practice and experienced first path fruition. However, the following months were ragged and in many ways nothing like I was expecting. In short, I felt vulnerable, raw and lost in deep existential angst. A good metaphor was that I felt there was a sniper constantly pursuing me, always five minutes behind with my name on his bullet…&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;However, as raw as the experience was, I couldn’t deny taking some delight in it because I knew something had changed, something irreversible. Quite a few on DhO encouraged me to practice shamata after practicing so much vipassana. Strange to say, it took quite a while for the penny to drop but finally this year, almost a year since the long retreat, I went on a two week retreat where I worked diligently at shamata and was finally able to get more constantly absorbed again. Here is a link to a practice report (with further links to stuff mentioned above): &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;5546234"&gt;http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5546234&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Reading the above, I don’t know if I have properly answered your questions but having another go, I would say that there is no fixed correlation between insight practice and DN, as it’s so dependent on many different variables. However, shamata practice (and in my case metta) is really useful to help integrate any insight as well as move things along when DN can suck. I guess it is true that ‘dry-vipassana’ can potentially lead to problems following a Path in that it is often harder to integrate what is seen without shamata BUT, as Daniel says in MCTB, better to have some insight to integrate than none at all! On the other hand, seeing through fixed-self view will also help reduce reactivity to that experience, helping a smoother opening, which probably explains why some find their jhanic ability sky-rocket after path (although it didn’t immediately play out like that for me, however, things are slowly changing as discussed above).&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;I hope there is something of use in my reply. With metta,&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Nick</description> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:47:03 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552282</guid> <dc:creator>Nick Green</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-30T21:47:03Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: My last statement: How to be Happy</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552268</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jane Laurel Carrington:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I had to laugh because he claimed his age-60-as a reason why he should be listened to. He had been through it all and now he knows what works and what doesn&amp;#039;t. I think people can listen and learn at any age. Getting frozen in a particular point of view is not something to aim for. And by the way, I&amp;#039;m the same age he is. I have a lot of the same satisfactions in my own life that he describes in his. This does not make me an expert on how to live. My path and his have been quite different; among other things, there was a lot more struggle in my case.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks, Jane.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;Florian</description> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:55:00 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5552268</guid> <dc:creator>Florian Weps</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-30T19:55:00Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551915</link> <description>I was going to start a new thread but I actually came back to DhO to ask questions that stem from this article.  The writer fails to ask (or perhaps posit/ attempt to answer) several important questions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1. What are the statistics of people who do insight practice vs. those who have Dark Night experiences that effect their quality of life. &lt;br /&gt;2. What are the treatments they are exploring.&lt;br /&gt;3. Does she suggest that patients stop meditation if they hit the dark night or to push through.&lt;br /&gt;4. Does there seem to be any correlation to types of paths and incidences of the Dark Night, e.g., does &amp;#034;dry vipassana&amp;#034; tend to produce more DN experiences than moving through the vipassana Jhanas?  Do people who have a solid metta practice tend to have less of a DN experience. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The reason I ask these questions is not academic.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am starting to see conservative teachers who have long railed against insight practice use these issues as proof of their claims that insight practice is not for laypeople.  These are teachers who listen closely to monks who are more or less fundamentalist and who feel that the Burmese influence on Buddhism is destructive. Ajan Geoff comes to mind. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe I&amp;#039;m too concerned about a small issue, but the Dark Night is a sexy topic and it&amp;#039;s new popularity has the potential to deal a fairly solid blow to what seems to be an amazing flowering of highly valuable insight practice. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Love to hear people&amp;#039;s thoughts!</description> <pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:38:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551915</guid> <dc:creator>Janusz Welin</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-29T14:38:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Statement of principles</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551734</link> <description>[quote=&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Simon E]&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Bill McCloskey:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have watched my son and daughter both deal and struggle with issues that were with them from birth. I&amp;#039;ve watched the children of friends who, it was clear at ages of 3 or 4 where going to struggle with issues that would eventually lead to drug addicitons. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Issues with (drug) addiction are in very many cases hereditary and can often be followed down through generations of family lines. I know an alcohol addiction counciler whos first step with a new client is to create a family tree and trace the addictive personalities down through it.&lt;br /&gt;I have a hard time seeing how this can be related to rebirth and not plain old genetics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Simon&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well if we all choose in advance the circumstances of our rebirth, they can both make sense.  If you had something or things you wanted to work on, you could just pick a situation that would be a good situation for working on it.  If you watch a movie or a tv show or play a video game, there are ALWAYS situations of strife and challenge that the protagonist is attempting to overcome and we watch that story and experience that thrill of development that the characters go through.  I think life is like that too.  There are no shows where everything is happy land all the time and people sit around eating good food, laughing, and strumming their harps for the whole entire show.  Such a show would be boring.  Sure a show will often have happy times for part of it, but it&amp;#039;s always counterbalanced by strife and challenging times. I think life is like that too.  The thrill of growth comes from having challenges and overcoming them.  How long can you sit around on a pillow eating bonbons and watching your favorite show until you get bored?  Lake of challenge is lack of growth and stagnation.   That&amp;#039;s why I don&amp;#039;t believe there is likely such thing as an ultimate attainment in which there is no more to learn.  Would you really even want to exist for billions of years with absolutely no development left to you?  Seems unlikely IMO.  &lt;br /&gt;-Eva   </description> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:28:48 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551734</guid> <dc:creator>Eva M Nie</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-28T21:28:48Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Statement of principles</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551664</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Bill McCloskey:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Simply put, if a practice is not relieving your suffering, it is the wrong practice. Look around you and at the posts on this board and decide for yourself if the majority seem happier or more confused. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To be fair, we should keep in mind that most of us tend to post when there is a problem, not when there isn&amp;#039;t one.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not sure if I&amp;#039;m understanding you correctly when you talk about personality traits being &amp;#034;set&amp;#034; at birth. I know you know those are also impermanent, so I interpret your statement to mean that there is a very large amount of &amp;#034;inertia&amp;#034; to some aspects, perhaps hinting at the tremendous amount of past lives we have had. In that sense, I agree with you. Samsara is not just a few dozen past lives, but billions and billions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Personally I had a really nice experience with noting practice about three and a half years ago. The dark night was unpleasant, yes, but I&amp;#039;m not sure where I would be today without the result of it all.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Other than the above points, I very much agree with your statement of principles and most of the other things you have said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I also want to second the opinion that you should feel free to talk about anything here. You will find much more openness, understanding, love, and genuine desire for exchange right here than you would expect if you were to go by what happens on other online forums.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:39:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551664</guid> <dc:creator>Dauphin Supple Chirp</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-28T14:39:43Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Path with No Fear</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551496</link> <description>Yeah, the Buddha was pretty into himself. It is hard to tell that from bragging. I am pretty into the Buddha, so I think he was just stating things mostly as they are and I am willing to forgive those aspects I consider a bit of hyperbole, but realize that this judgement is coming from my side, as your judgement would from your side, so any teacher or claimer or whatever you would be judging would be your perception, as whether or not they had attained to what they claimed is sometimes hard to tell, and it could be just an accurate assessment or bullshit or a mix of both, and so it is worth realizing that.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In my perfect world, teachers would tell you what they had realized and mastered and be right and be willing to teach you that. This is the best scenario. I feel the Buddha generally falls into this category.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Other scenarios exist also, such as teachers who won&amp;#039;t tell you what they had realized and mastered but have actually mastered things and are willing to teach you how to master them, but this is a strange thing, as how can you tell what the teacher knows and doesn&amp;#039;t know? It is pretty gamey in my view.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Other scenarios you clearly wish to avoid: they claim something but don&amp;#039;t know it and are willing to teach you: obviously a big problem.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Only slightly better: they claim nothing, have realized something, but won&amp;#039;t teach you or you can&amp;#039;t find them, as they make no claims to anything, the effect being the same: you can&amp;#039;t learn from this person who has real insight. What a waste, if you ask me.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thoughts?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Daniel</description> <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2014 05:00:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551496</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel M. Ingram</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-28T05:00:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Path with No Fear</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551419</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Bill McCloskey:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Does the teacher claim attainments? Avoid.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;You definitely want to avoid the Buddha then. He claimed attainments.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:46:34 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551419</guid> <dc:creator>J C</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-27T23:46:34Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: My last statement: How to be Happy</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551334</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Monks, there are these four modes of practice. Which four? Painful practice with slow intuition, painful practice with quick intuition, pleasant practice with slow intuition, &amp;amp; pleasant practice with quick intuition.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is four modes in which person can walk through the river:&lt;br /&gt;- against the flow slowly&lt;br /&gt;- against the flow rapidly&lt;br /&gt;- with the flow slowly&lt;br /&gt;- with the flow rapidly&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;suffering usually comes from bad practice. If *you* note hell out of things then it will be a painful ride and feel like mind is against you with cycles and all this crap happening but if you merely allow things being noted by mind then it will be rather pleasant and non problematic. Why waste time trying to go against Tao when end goal, the point of practice is to learn to go with the flow, to *be* the flow? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;obviously you might think that there is something to be gained from doing it hard way like strengthening oneself or smt which would classify to one of two first groups Buddha mentioned (and the group Buddha was in himself...) . Its not to me to say if its needless or not, just that imho at least for myself it was good call to weaken myself and strengthen my mind instead, because that gives actually good and pleasurable results instead of bad that I was experiencing for years. Only good periods of my former practice were when *my* will was weak which was during A&amp;amp;P and EQ, but for me it seemed exactly other way around.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:56:26 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551334</guid> <dc:creator>Paweł K</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-27T17:56:26Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551234</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;cmm:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Anonymous Coward:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; Hell all,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hell to you too.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Soory and Thunks  ;o)  Corrected in original post. </description> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:06:20 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551234</guid> <dc:creator>Anonymous Coward</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-27T14:06:20Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551231</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Dream Walker:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;google this --&amp;gt; site:http://www.dharmaoverground.org Willoughby Britton&lt;br /&gt;Several threads discussing her work and some video.&lt;br /&gt;As a discussion starter....what did you want to say AC?&lt;br /&gt;~D&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks for the pointers -- &lt;br /&gt;Being relatively new here, I did not know that Willoughby Britton had already been discussed at DhO. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I had nothing specific in mind when posting.  The article presented information I found interesting and worth mentioning on DhO, possibly adding to the discussion or to get something new started. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Best, &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AC</description> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:05:10 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551231</guid> <dc:creator>Anonymous Coward</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-27T14:05:10Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: My last statement: How to be Happy</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551218</link> <description>Well, yes and no. His posts have reflected a person who believes what he believes, which is fine, but there&amp;#039;s no sense whatsoever of willingness to listen or engage with anyone else. The only reason he opted to stay as long as he did was to tell the rest of us what&amp;#039;s what. Daniel, in contrast, will listen and engage, consider what others are saying, and converse. Mr. McCloskey won&amp;#039;t do that because he is a dogmatist. Dogmatists can be interesting and their point of view may be valuable, but after awhile it gets old. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I had to laugh because he claimed his age-60-as a reason why he should be listened to. He had been through it all and now he knows what works and what doesn&amp;#039;t. I think people can listen and learn at any age. Getting frozen in a particular point of view is not something to aim for. And by the way, I&amp;#039;m the same age he is. I have a lot of the same satisfactions in my own life that he describes in his. This does not make me an expert on how to live. My path and his have been quite different; among other things, there was a lot more struggle in my case. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In spite of his preaching, I have enjoyed reading his posts. I tend to enjoy reading most people&amp;#039;s posts, whether I agree with them or not. That&amp;#039;s the beauty of Internet forums. I&amp;#039;m feeling gratitude toward everyone who has posted in true sincerity, and particularly grateful to Daniel for establishing and maintaining this place.  </description> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:55:08 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551218</guid> <dc:creator>Jane Laurel Carrington</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-27T12:55:08Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551203</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;are they all gingers?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Do you mean redheads?  Is that a concept that had been previously discussed seriously?  You know what Freud opined about the Irish (who have a large percentage of &amp;#039;gingers&amp;#039;), namely that they are immune to psychotherapy.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;i ask because...gulp..i am one and think that I could pretty much &amp;#034;go-pro&amp;#034; with my DN achievements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;;-)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:10:06 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5551203</guid> <dc:creator>tom moylan</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-27T11:10:06Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550910</link> <description>I am not aware of any obvious way to predict it.&lt;br /&gt;I know a reasonable number of examples of people who have had a hard time who were very accomplished, seemingly sane people.&lt;br /&gt;It is like athletic injuries: if you train hard and play hard, injuries are more likely, but even people who just play casually or just walk down the street can seriously hurt themselves.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:17:20 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550910</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel M. Ingram</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-26T19:17:20Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: My last statement: How to be Happy</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550858</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Bill McCloskey:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And finally how to tell a good path from a bad path. In a good path, every day you should see yourself becoming calmer, more dispassionate, more patient and above all HAPPIER. If your path is making you agitated, depressed, unsure, confused, or defensive, it is the wrong path. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And when evaluating a path, look to see if the students of that path exhibit wisdom, patience, calmness, and above all happiness. If they seem agitated, defensive, obsessive, confused and above all not happy, than that is a path to avoid. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bill, I enjoyed this post and many of your points are spot-on, but I disagree with the one I quoted above.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here&amp;#039;s the Buddha in the &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;accesstoinsight&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;tipitaka&amp;#x2f;an&amp;#x2f;an04&amp;#x2f;an04&amp;#x2e;162&amp;#x2e;than&amp;#x2e;html"&gt;Vitthara Sutta&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Verdana&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Arial&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Monks, there are these four modes of practice. Which four? Painful practice with slow intuition, painful practice with quick intuition, pleasant practice with slow intuition, &amp;amp; pleasant practice with quick intuition.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you read the whole sutta, you&amp;#039;ll see that for some practitioners, practice is quite painful according to their nature and due to no fault of their own or the technique. The suttas do not support your claim that a good path is necessarily easy and peaceful. I think practitioners who make pleasant progress, which is a consequence of their nature, sometimes believe that others are at fault or practicing incorrectly when they have a difficult experience on the path, when that isn&amp;#039;t the case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s OK to swear off this forum if you feel that is best for you, but we have benefited from your contributions. It would also be OK to leave for a while and return to contribute more if the inspiration should strike you.&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; According to the commentaries, the Buddha would sometimes teach almost continuously, sleeping only an hour a night, but other times he would go into private retreat.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; I&amp;#039;ve seen many people here stop posting for awhile and then return as the currents of their practice change , alternating between engagement with other practitioners and seeking solitude.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope you do decide to participate here and on Reddit again . Your posts in /r/buddhism have also been topical, concise, and illuminating: deserving of all the upvotes.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:41:25 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550858</guid> <dc:creator>Matthew Horn</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-26T16:41:25Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: My last statement: How to be Happy</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550783</link> <description>register, post some posts, few new threads and then officially quit for unknown reason&lt;br /&gt;not very original...</description> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:43:35 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550783</guid> <dc:creator>Paweł K</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-26T13:43:35Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>My last statement: How to be Happy</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550761</link> <description>Everyone, &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I announced I was no longer going to be posting here in an earlier post but I was kindly asked to reconsider and I was glad I did. It did allow me to express some views that I think are important but are often misunderstood by the newest members of the path. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But with this post, I will really will have said all that I think important to say, so this really will be my last post. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yesterday I posted on a Path with No Fear. This was in response to what I see as the very real dangers of some of the ideas that pass for Buddhism today. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This post will be designed to give you everything else that I have to say on the subject of Buddhism. And I give it to you in hopes that at least one or two of you might find it valuable. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First: the number one thing I think you can do if you wish to follow the Buddhist path is to take the 5 precepts. No lying, no killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. No single practice will bring you more peace and equanimity.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Second: renounce as much as you can. Giving up things like drugs and alcohol will first of all save you a ton of money, and financial security can greatly reduce your stress level. Few of us can survive the way the monks did on daily alms rounds, so we need to figure out a way to maintain ourselves with as little stress as possible, and not wasting money is a great way to do that. But the continuing of weening away from our other pleasures in life will help tremendously as well. A number of years ago I went through a divorce and left home. I rented a furnished room and only took a few essentials: clothes, a few books, and I really felt the freedom that comes with giving up the possessions that really hold us down and imprison us. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One way to slowly ween yourself away is to practice similar to the the christian’s church’s Lent. Try giving up that thing that you crave most for 40 days and see how it goes. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The next thing is to make your practice your own. The Buddha talks about learning how to be a basket weaver. The teacher shows you how to make the basket, and after you learn how to make a basket, you need to figure out yourself how to make the best basket. That is where mastery comes in. Does the basket need to be higher? How high? You need to examine it from every side. Once you have finally made the perfect basket, you use that as YOUR guide to making baskets. The same applies to meditation. so much of meditation is a private affair and an individual affair. You will never become a master by slavishly following what has worked for someone else. Once you have the basics, you yourself need to search within yourself for mastery. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And finally how to tell a good path from a bad path. In a good path, every day you should see yourself becoming calmer, more dispassionate, more patient and above all HAPPIER. If your path is making you agitated, depressed, unsure, confused, or defensive, it is the wrong path. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And when evaluating a path, look to see if the students of that path exhibit wisdom, patience, calmness, and above all happiness. If they seem agitated, defensive, obsessive, confused and above all not happy, than that is a path to avoid. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope some of this will be of use to some of you. Unfortunately, I won’t be back to answer any questions since I have decided to renounce internet forums completely. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I wish you all find happiness in this life and choose the best path to get your there. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bill</description> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:58:29 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550761</guid> <dc:creator>deleted deleted</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-26T12:58:29Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Discussion starter: article on Dark Night --</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550516</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Anonymous Coward:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; Hell all,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hell to you too.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Is there anything common to those who go through real bad dark nights?&lt;br /&gt;Common elements in their practice, tradition, psychological makeup, are they all gingers?</description> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:44:08 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5550516</guid> <dc:creator>cmm</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-06-25T22:44:08Z</dc:date> </item> </channel> </rss> 