:) Just to report an interesting 'first' from two nights ago. I've been working with elements of dream yoga from a Tibetan Buddhist book  - meditating until I drop off to sleep with a view to maintaining awareness while asleep. It's still a work in progress, but i have managed brief snatches.

You've probably heard me report meditative experience, but little by way of conventional realities.

It seems to have triggered not quite my first but certainly my first more extended (conscious) period of what felt like an OOB experience. I've no idea what the significance was or if it had any meaning, but  it started with my coming back from sleep to awareness in a darkish room. It felt like it was night and that whatever dim light  - maybe moonlight - was around came from outside. It seemed like a flat sided hut perhaps framed in bamboo or something and with maybe fabric matting walls - certainly not a modern house.

There was what looked like a tall, probably Indian/Asian old lady standing at the far side of the room behind what looked like a low sleeping platform, with a shawl or headscarf and what was maybe a sari (more like some fabric wrapped around her shoulders) on - it was too dark to clearly make out colours, but it seemed like she was poor and just plain worn out. And sad. Her features were mostly in shadow.

She didn't move other than to slightly tilt her head, but she seemed aware of me, and to be looking  intently in my direction - I hope I didn't scare her, although it didn't seem that way. I was struggling a little to think clearly, and to make sense of the situation - I was momentarily a little nervous, and then  there was just this sense of feeling sorry for her. I never reached any clear decision on what to do and found myself awake in bed with what felt like clear recall after a few minutes.

It didn't feel at all like a dream. There was none of the usual surreal feeling. The context was both unlikely but very normal and ordinary at the same time. Nothing much was happening.

Not sure what to make of it, or what if anything was required of me. Maybe it was just a trial run...

Wow, that must have been a very unique experience. I cant verify but the first thought which came to mind when I read this had been a self induced OBE. Your soul traveled to her, question is "Why"? There are some people here that know way more than I about OBE`s. However I think its great that you did such a trial run being that there is a soul whom "noticed" you being there. What I am wondering is this too: If you would have been more focused or more experienced in doing such, would the apparent darkish room been more lighted? Are you planning to return to her?

Love and hugs,
Nanner

Vajra:

Here's what comes to mind for me. I can't say if it is 100% accurate.

First of all, I figure your higher self or some form of spirit guidance created this experience for you. They are trying to help you out.

The Indian lady is a symbol for how in Eastern thought the creative aspect of being isn't allowed to be a part of the equation. She is sad because she wasn't allowed to manifest as the creative aspect of being. According to Eastern thought she's been considered to be nothing but an illusion to be dispensed with.

Eastern thought often tends to say there is only one "self." The viewpoint that source being worked things out so that in the end many selves/beings/souls get to share an eternal state of perfected oneness and love with each other is negated.

With the one self viewpoint I figure just one of us will get to be the only self that survives in the end. Chances are that none of the people on this forum will get to be the one self. In fact, chances are, no member of the human race will get to be the one self.

Or,

Perhaps it is possible that consciousness and energy can be formed so that that despite what an eastern tradition such as Buddhism claims, there is a such thing as a self, an individual entity, a soul.  If everything is God, the one self, the one mind; then wouldn't this be true even if God/one self/one mind manifested in many ways?

Will one ever let go of that which seems to make one feel separate from all others, if one believes that this will lead to one's extinction?

My guess, based on your description and lots of similar instances from others, is that this is a look at your prior life. Or one of them, anyhow.

d

Dave:

Perhaps the lady is sad because she found out that she doesn't get to be the one self.


dave_a_mbs wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

My guess, based on your description and lots of similar instances from others, is that this is a look at your prior life. Or one of them, anyhow. d

Thanks for the thoughts guys. I hadn't really decided anything Nanner, and I'm not too sure how much control I may have. But it sounds like it'd be worth trying to get there in a slightly more 'together' condition.

Interesting question as to what drove it all right R, I guess it happened for some reason. I'm less sure about eastern thought/creative action though, although I could well imagine her suffering in what might have been a society that reduced women to slavery.

A past life sounds like a definite possibility Dave, there certainly was a high level of instinctive empathy. Now that you mention it I had a very brief flash of a probably similar 'jungle' reality about a year ago during an attempt to access past lives which hadn't seemed to amount to much, but like the few other experiences of that sort I'd had I bounced out of it pretty much immediately.

Greetings,

Something similiar in the mid-1990's brought me to a conclusion such as Recoverer and Nanner suggest---

Before I found Bruce's books, I was doing alot of reading on Buddhism, as all the admirable people I'd met for awhile were Buddhist. I never seemed to find the good stuff on the principles but I kept plugging away at it and was seriously considering 'officially' changing my religious orientation.
Then I started having such dream experiences as you describe but I was in a hut with a large extended family. Most of the people there ignored me except for a small child who stared at me all the time.
Everything was always wet and muddy as they lived almost on water and how active everyone stayed! I first interpreted the meaning of these dreamvisions socioeconomically as me learning tolerance and respect for a difficult way of life.
After about three repetitions then the dreams stopped and during sleep I started hearing questions in another language . They seemed to wait for an answer and then got more demanding and angry. They started repeating a brief phrase /question ending in "Pauly". I thought Pauly better answer soon or he was going to be in a heap of trouble !
A third and last phase of this was when a face started showing up, floating in front of my eyes as I tried to sleep. Several nights he made direct eye contact and seemed kind, but asked the same sounding questions. I finally got that he was talking to me and I shook my head and denied being Pauly or Polly and that surprised him. --- :) See what happened here? Then he appeared to concentrate and we were able to mentally communicate abit. I told him I was just curious about learning medittion and had apparently accidentally contacted him.
This whole series had unnerved me by then and I told myself I didn't want to get into it any further so nothing further happened.

To use Bruce's terms for whatlater resolved, my Disc Family didn't want/need a probe into Buddhism, and so put me into a 'Burmese' household to see life there, thinking I would withdraw my interest. I believe I was somehow put into a compatible vibratory level with real Burmese Buddhists.  :o
Sorry that was so long!
In short ---a trial run !
Bets

hi Virja,

I feel you visted  Borneo.

Regards
Alan

Very possible Alan, it had that sort of feel...

I am not exactly sure where I read this, either it was in Quantum Physics or on Peter H. Kirchners site, but there is suppose to be a co-exsisting earth, exactly like ours here, where the timeframe there is a few epochs short of ours though. Maybe you travel there - into their epoch.

Hugs,
Nanner

I dunno Ian, this is one of those obe/phasing things I would certainly enter into my log for later reference. I have had similar obes where it took as much as 2 years to begin to unravel the significance of why I had it, in the meantime, just like we are doing here, we are offering interpretations only, sooner or later, you might re-read your log, and just suddenly realize who the woman is, and why you were there, but it does seem it's important to know, because if you are like me, the obe is a rare and tantalizing excursion and I always learn something about myself at the least.

to sum up the answers here just for fun:
1) she's an alternate reality you
2) might be a disc member (see Bruce's reference)
3) you have empathy with her (meaning to that)
4) might be a woman suppressed in another country u r supposed to finish retrieving)

R thinks it's related to Buddhism which suppresses the individual soul which in turn would say we can never be one with god.

Ian, tell me what you think Buddhism says? I'm sorry, I know u talk of this path a great deal, but I still don't see Buddhism quite the same as R. although, I admit sometimes I think you are hard on yourself when reflecting on this pathway of thought, still, I sense you are unfolding exactly as you are supposed to. its just a feeling.
does Buddhism speak of PUL? there must be some talk of that in there. the empathy feeling you had for the woman, is a facet of PUL, my opinion. If you concentrate and ask why, why do I feel empathy for her? you might find yourself getting the answer why you had this obe.

emotions contain rotes of information. maybe thats what may be missing in Buddhism? that emotions are not important communications to self?

if that was true, and just rambling here, you know I like you. but if it were true emotions and empathy were not so important in Buddhism, and if it is saying we must constantly be watchdogs of the ego, I think I'm in trouble.

although I will submit that we are not our emotional body; we are not our belief systems, we are not our physical bodies.  we are spirit using these items for unfoldment and development of uniqueness and character.

and nobody can take away our intrinsic selves, our prized individuality is eternal. I just been realizing the potential in each person is so huge for becoming more of their own self as we all own this ability.
The church of Religious Science had this song we all sung...It's in every one of us, to be wise, we can all do everything, without ever knowing how, its in every one of us, here and now.

so, if it was me and I saw this lady in my obe, I would converse with her and maybe she has something she wants to tell you, since u r linked to her by empathy or PUL.

love, alysia

Betson:

Yes, yes, yes! I didn't come here so I can negate the creative aspect of being as if what it creates is nothing more than a meaningless illusion. I've received numerous messages including dreams which told me to forget about the Eastern nihilistic approach.

As opposed to learning to deal with life the Buddha tried to escape it. Not this, not this, until he supposedly thought himself out of existence. Well, "who"/"what" precisely thought its way out of existence?  

Our creative aspect of being is a great gift, and it doesn't go away by pretending it doesn't exist and there is no such thing as a soul.  The trick is to become masters of our creative aspect of being so we can learn to live according to love and wisdom.  I agree with the Buddha that we need to learn to be detached, but we must remember that there is somebody who learns to be detached.

Here's what happens with Eastern meditation. One part of a person's mind focuses its attention until it seems as if other parts of a person's being don't exist. This approach might sort of work for a while, but eventually a person will get to the point where he or she understands that other parts of his or her being don't get dealt with in the manner they need to be dealt with, unless he or she takes the time to deal with them.

I guess it is up to each person to decide. Either what has been created is a big catastrophic mistake that needs to be annihilated, or it is intentional and in the end serves a sublime purpose that has room for "each and every one of us."

Either  :) :) :) :) :) :)  :) :) :) :).....

or just one shocked  :o self all by its self for all of eternity.

Alysia wrote: "Ian, tell me what you think Buddhism says? I'm sorry, I know u talk of this path a great deal, but I still don't see Buddhism quite the same as R."

Recoverer responds:  "I figure different people need different things. I figure many people benefit from their Buddhist practices. It helps them grow in love and have more control of their emotional energy.

However, the Buddhist teachings I've read clearly state that there is no such thing as an individual soul. Eventually one needs to reach the point where one realizes that one doesn't exist as an individual entity so one's deluded mind stuff disolves away.

Contrary to the above, I've found that there is one large self, call it God if you like, and this self parceled itself out so many beings can exist. Each parcel is a combination of awareness and creative mind energy.  Each of us can use our creative mind energy in just about any way. The goal is to learn to use it in a wise and loving way. Some Buddhist practices will help with this aim, but eventually one needs to get to the point where one sees that one isn't just a mere nothing, but a large wonderful parcel of God. I figure Ian can do such a thing. However, the limitations that are built into the Buddhist approach might prevent him from doing so.    

Thanks Alysia. My inclination is to park it too as the info will probably come with time. The fact that it hooks up with a snatch of experience from last year implies that it probably has meaning, but I'm not sure what. She seemed so very down, maybe she needs a leg up to unstick her. Either way I got nowhere last night  - I was on the way, even getting the physical vibes TMI talk about but something caused me to pop back. Like yourself it's a rare experience for me although that's two nights in a row with some action... :) If its to happen it'll happen.

On the Buddhist view of emotion. As ever its (as best I understand it) finely nuanced, and avoids extremes. (the 'middle way' again)

My experience of Tibetan teachers is that they generally embody a very beautiful lightness, openness, humour and caring quality of being without a shred of that rose tinted over emotionality we often get into. To the point where you have to say 'I'd like some of that too please'. As a path it's certainly helped me to unravel a long series of very painful knots in my life.

I can't guarantee that you won't find an unemotional Buddhist, or even a sizeable group as in the case of other traditions. I can't guarantee either that you won't either come in contact with what you could  call over serious Buddhists, even more so in the West - some get far too serious about their observance and unconditional reverence for teachers.

A fundamentalist tendency is a fundamentalist tendency wherever you go I guess. But at least in Buddhism it's diametrically opposed by the teaching. Try for example Chogyam Trungpa's 'Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism' if you'd like a look at this.

Lightening and opening to ultimately become an embodiment of compassion (love) is at the centre of the higher teachings in Buddhism - the Mahayana and Vajrayana views. They position it as the natural and unavoidable consequence of higher consciousness. It's embodied in the Bodhisattva ideal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva . It starts as an aspiration requiring practice (like tonglen which I've spoken of before) but becomes a state of being motivated by the welfare of others.  

The tendency to slate Buddhism as unemotional seems to have originated with early Western commentators who maybe mistook the cultural tendency in some some parts of the East towards a certain inscrutability as being somehow Buddhist, or had a racial, religious, national, cultural or other axe to grind - something which seems to continue in some quarters.

Zen Buddhism didn't cover itself in glory in Japan in WW2, but then i suppose neither did Christianity. Both situations I think were much more a reflection of the consciousness of the peoples concerned  than any adherence to core teaching.

I'd argue too that much of what's perceived as 'Buddhist' behaviour is actually more of a reflection of the local culture.

Buddhism (mahayana anyway which is the variety I know a little about) does take a cautious view of emotion which i've touched on before. Specifically there are good emotions, and bad emotions. There's also the view that very strong emotions imply too much attachment to their object, and that they lead to suffering and wrongdoing. Especially in the case of the kleshas or negative emotions  - namely desire, anger, ignorance, pride and jealousy.

Absence of emotion is not however desirable, it's in effect the feedback mechanism of our mind and especially your heart. Without it you're lost.

The positive or maturing emotions - kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and serenity (aspects of love I guess you would say) are regarded as something to be cultivated   - initially as above through mindful practice, but eventually as a state of mind.

Buddhism has been criticised for not being pro-active enough on social inequality too, but I think that stems from the thought that direct action rarely does good. That as i've written about before it produces just an opposite reaction and an escalation. That the way forward is the raising of consciousness. Our record of go-getting intervention and economic development in the West is probably not so good in the eyes of the 'helped', and may prove disastrous (climate etc) for us all. Starting with the crusades...

I'm not a Buddhist per se, but my sense is that there's great scope for a step forward in the mingling of Western mind and Buddhist teaching...

ian

Here's an excerpt from a lecture on the subject of emotions delivered by the Dalai Lama in Dehli in 2004:

'It would not be correct to say that we should have no emotions. A person without emotions is a person without feeling. He is apt to be dry, distant, cold, friendless, negative and vicious. The important thing is not to harbour negative emotions.

Negative emotions are emotions that are immature, narrow and cloudy. For example, attachment and hatred are two such negative emotions. When a person sees the world through the prism of attachment, he would conclude that whatever he does is 100% right. And when he sees someone else through the prism of hate, he would conclude that whatever the other person does is 100% wrong. Nothing in Nature is 100% right or wrong. Such a perception is merely a mental projection, that distorts our appreciation of Reality, creating more problems.

Positive emotions are mature emotions because here emotion is combined with intelligence. The application of intelligence leads to analysis and investigation. Analysis leads to conviction. The disciplining of emotion leads to a holistic vision of Reality. Everything is interconnected. If one fails to see the interconnectedness and interdependence, then it is a distorted vision. Examples of positive emotions are faith and Compassion, which can be imbibed only through a training of emotions.

Knowledge leads to conviction. Conviction leads to determination. Determination leads to familiarization. Familiarization leads to change of emotion. The main attempt must be have a clear vision so that we can see Reality as it truly is. Only then can we solve the problems of life.

Cultivation of positive and noble emotions leads one towards Compassion, Contentment, Forgiveness and Self-discipline, in turn producing a calmness of Mind. When there are no ripples in the Mind, it remains clear in its vision of Reality. It sees a problem as it really is and is able to solve it easily. Problems would then be unable to disturb Peace of Mind. But if the Mind is weak, if it is assailed by fear and doubt or too much of unbridled emotion, it would find it difficult to face the arduous problems of life.

Life is bound to be full of problems. Even if there are no other problems, one's own body suffers from the problems of illness, decay and death. If problems are an integral part of our existence, we have to be fully prepared to face these with calmness, placidity and fortitude.'

I would be curious as to whether this was a retrieval opportunity, or glimpse of past life, possibly, Vajra. A very odd feeling when something is experienced so vividly. I can relate to what you said, Bets, too, about a face which appeared to be hovering in the air above you. I have experienced that as well. I saw an old woman's face once, a black woman, no idea why, and she had a sweet expression on her face. She was just looking down on me. It was a peaceful thing.

love, blink :)

Have just read your second post R.  :) Thank you for the concern, time will tell I guess.

I'm not sure I'd agree with what you say on the God issue. Buddhism does not teach the existence of a God per se, but it's so close that it's really not an issue in my book. (it's mostly just a matter of terminology)

That's not to say that some won't say that Buddhism teaches no God - that's technically true but only if you apply a mainstream orthodox Christian definition of what it means.

Dave I think (?) expressed the view that Buddhism possibly avoided the God word to side step  complications given that Hinduism already had this huge panoply of Gods.

It's often said that you can be a Buddhist and follow pretty much any religion that you like. You'll notice that I try to mix my terms, that I'm not wholly Buddhist in expression. I'm not actually a Buddhist. But I've such a respect for the way Buddhism provides a practical framework for path and understanding that's helped me so much, and hasn't so far proven wrong. (which is more than I can say about the conventional protestantism I was brought up in - at least at the level it was expressed)

I'm not sure if I understand you or Buddhist thought 100%, but an inherently loving mind that is unity when viewed at the highest level (God consciousness), and simultaneously distributed progressively down through living beings to our level and below sounds very like what you describe. Christ mind for example as an emanation of love or an aspect of Buddha nature sounds OK to me too.

If we're talking old men with white beards on clouds that get angry and jealous when we do wrong then we'd have to agree to differ, but that's not what you are saying.

The bit that I don't have a hard and fast view of is the question of continuity of self. Clearly even Buddhism teaches that some essence is transmitted through the Bardos between existences at this level (samasara, or time/space reality - helped along by karma), even if it's meaningless at the highest or absolute level.

I can't handle a view that suggests we're reincarnated or move on to higher realities as body, mind and spirit. I'm not keen on the view of individual souls either (there's too much communication between us, as well as vertically too), although that too becomes more or less the same thing as distributed God/highest mind if you postulate that the separate bits merge as higher levels of conciousness are achieved.

I don't quite know how it's supposed to work, but suspect that the situation is a bit like the simultaneous multidimensional view of reality that i set out in the post about Hitler from a helicopter view. Specifically that mind is simultaneously unity (God), or any and all of the entities below that that contain mind.

Some of these entities are presumably in much the same way simultaneously amalgamations of lower levels of mind and those lower minds too.

So maybe what you perceive is all just a case of perspective, the vantage point from which you view.

The one thing I'm pretty decided on is that it's best to run with a provisional view on this stuff, but to not get too attached to it so that there's scope for development with experience. Also that it's not wise to seek for differences between traditions as something to get hung up on or argue about, as it's much more likely that the bits (setting terminology and nuance aside) they agree on are the ones that are most true.

The rest I think is just mind games and a diversion from the real work...

Vajra:

Comments below within double quotation marks:


wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:

Have just read your second post R.  :) Thank you for the concern, time will tell I guess. I'm not sure I'd agree with what you say on the God issue. Buddhism does not teach the existence of a God per se, but it's so close that it's really not an issue in my book. (it's mostly just a matter of terminology) That's not to say that some won't say that Buddhism teaches no God - that's technically true but only if you apply a mainstream orthodox Christian definition of what it means. Dave I think (?) expressed the view that Buddhism possibly avoided the God word to side step  complications given that Hinduism already had this huge panoply of Gods. ""First of all, I figure there is no one way that Buddhists view God, so I'll speak in a general way.  When I used to read Buddhist texts I figured the "one mind" is the same thing as the "one self" Vedantists think of, and this "one self" is God.  When viewing source in such a way, I viewed it as consciousness, existence, bliss; everything else is an illusion. I also believed that everything came into existence not because they were desired, but because they were a mistake, illusion, maya, samsara. This being the case, there was no need to explain precisely how everything came to be, because that would be like trying to explain how water appears in a mirage. Eventually things got to the point where I realized that the creative aspect of being is a part of divine reality, just as consciousness is.  I figure if I can be aware of everything that exists within my energy field, and an oversoul/disk like being can be aware of everything that exists within its energy field, then why can't the first being who existed, call him God if you like, be aware of everything that exists within its energy field? Eastern teachings don't tend to emphasize source in such a way.  People who have near death experiences often do. So do people such as Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe when they speak of a creator."" It's often said that you can be a Buddhist and follow pretty much any religion that you like. You'll notice that I try to mix my terms, that I'm not wholly Buddhist in expression. I'm not actually a Buddhist. But I've such a respect for the way Buddhism provides a practical framework for path and understanding that's helped me so much, and hasn't so far proven wrong. (which is more than I can say about the conventional protestantism I was brought up in - at least at the level it was expressed) ""As I stated on another post, some Buddhist practices can be beneficial. The degree would vary from person to person.  If a person takes the viewpoint that there is no such thing as an individual self/soul, one isn't likely to try to determine if they do in fact exist as a specific being, at a level that goes beyond the human conception of what an individual being is. By being in contact with spirit guidance on a regular basis, I've found that beings do exist at a level that is beyond the limited body based way that people see themselves.  If I ask my guidance a question, immediately it is able to respond with a very specific and detailed symbolic answer that I either see visually or experience as a short waking dream. This tells me that my guidance acts as a specific being who isn't limited in the way we humans tend to limit ourselves. Clearly this being is more than an illusion. It is a bonified field of awareness and intelligent creative energy that knows how to abide with comprehensive awareness, freedom and love. There are ways of learning and energetic work I have received since making such contact, that I couldn't possibly duplicate by a formulated practice. My spiritual needs cannot be incapsulated within a specific way of practicing. There is no way I will ascend to the level of the being who helps me, by following the guidelines of teachings that don't include such levels of being. Bruce wrote of the planning intelligence. There was a time this intelligence was a disk. Before being a disk this being existed in a smaller less developed way, just as we exist in a smaller, less developed way. This shows a manner of spiritual progression that is quite different than the viewpoint of progressing from being human to being nothing at all."" I'm not sure if I understand you or Buddhist thought 100%, but an inherently loving mind that is unity when viewed at the highest level (God consciousness), and simultaneously distributed progressively down through living beings to our level and below sounds very like what you describe. Christ mind for example as an emanation of love or an aspect of Buddha nature sounds OK to me too. If we're talking old men with white beards on clouds that get angry and jealous when we do wrong then we'd have to agree to differ, but that's not what you are saying. ""Certainly I don't mean the above. I figure we are destined to be light beings who have nothing to do with physical bodies and who are much too wise and loving to think in terms of vengeful behavior."" The bit that I don't have a hard and fast view of is the question of continuity of self. Clearly even Buddhism teaches that some essence is transmitted through the Bardos between existences at this level (samasara, or time/space reality - helped along by karma), even if it's meaningless at the highest or absolute level. ""This goes back to which Buddhist one is speaking of.  I've often read that Buddhism believes that there is no such thing as a self that transmigrates from one body to another, it is only our delusions that cause us to believe such a thing. After we let go of our attachment to worldly life, the mental tendencies that cause such delusion no longer exist, and there is no longer anything to reincarnate.  It is as if we are a bunch of unwanted blemishes, pimples, warts that pure being doesn't want. Obviously, my viewpoint of us being light beings who were intentionally created and who have the ability to use our ability to create in various ways, contradicts this way of thinking. Consider this analogy. Can a painter claim that he doesn't have what it takes to paint a picture, by refusing to make use of the paint, brushes, canvas, know how, and talent he has been provided with? Related to this, when I consider what I am, there is somebody here who is able to discern in a manner that is quite different than the limited and robotic manner in which the thought patterns I make use of operate."" I can't handle a view that suggests we're reincarnated or move on to higher realities as body, mind and spirit. I'm not keen on the view of individual souls either (there's too much communication between us, as well as vertically too), although that too becomes more or less the same thing as distributed God/highest mind if you postulate that the separate bits merge as higher levels of conciousness are achieved. ""I look at this way. Imagine there is an energy field that manifests as a room. This is all that exists. Isn't possible that different parts of this energy field can manifest in various ways, perhaps so several people are formed, without the fact of there being just one energy field being negated?  The evidence shows that things have been worked out so that energy can combine so that various things can be formed. Subatomic particles combine to form atoms, atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine at increasing levels of complexity, until cohesive fields of energy such as rocks, planets, stars, solor systems, galaxies, cells, organs, bodies, and souls are created.  As long as the rules stay in place that allow energy to combine in such a way, what's to stop such combinations to exist indefinitely? If a soul evolves to the point where it knows how to live according to love, wisdom, and an understanding of its oneness with everything else, what would be the point of it disassembling itself?"" I don't quite know how it's supposed to work, but suspect that the situation is a bit like the simultaneous multidimensional view of reality that i set out in the post about Hitler from a helicopter view. Specifically that mind is simultaneously unity (God), or any and all of the entities below that that contain mind. Some of these entities are presumably in much the same way simultaneously amalgamations of lower levels of mind and those lower minds too. So maybe what you perceive is all just a case of perspective, the vantage point from which you view. ""I figure the main thing that prevents us from seeing things as they are, is emotional attachments. When we come to the point where we realize that truth as it is provides us with everything we need, we'll be open to seeing precisely how things have been created.  The manner in which everything was created doesn't change, because this manner can be viewed in various ways."" The one thing I'm pretty decided on is that it's best to run with a provisional view on this stuff, but to not get too attached to it so that there's scope for development with experience. Also that it's not wise to seek for differences between traditions as something to get hung up on or argue about, as it's much more likely that the bits (setting terminology and nuance aside) they agree on are the ones that are most true. "I believe it is a matter of what a person is trying to accomplish.  I believe that the main thing each of us needs to do is grow in love, and this can be done with various belief systems in place. When a person moves onto the World of spirit, he or she will eventually find out what it is all about. I figure each of has beliefs that are false while we are here in the physical World. On the other hand, there are some people who have the goal of growing spiritually as much as possible. In order to do so, they'll need to make certain that they don't limit themselves according to systems of thought that won't allow them to see the entire picture. Our beliefs, even when they seem transcendent, do limit what we can experience."" The rest I think is just mind games and a diversion from the real work...

""I don't engage in these discussions as a form of intellectual entertainment. I do so because I care about the spiritual growth of this planet, and I care about others. I have seen how certain ways of thinking limit people and curtail their spiritual growth. For example, when it comes to a limiting thought patterns, some people will take the approach, "Who does this thought pattern appear to?" answer that it comes from their mind which has nothing to do with who they are, and leave it at that. The problem is, we are more than pure awareness,  we are also our minds, and if we want to gain freedom from a limiting thought pattern, we have to look at it in a specific maner that enables us to see how false and unecessary it is so we no longer pick it up.""

so do I understand correctly that it is Buddhism that does not believe in the reincarnation, the way the masses perceive it? or it is yourself does not believe in coming back as the same person to learn anew something in progressive style?

I agree with most the tenets of Buddhism, and I like of course, the jolly laughing statue of the Buddha. I often picture JC had a sense of humor as well, as part of his loving nature. I still don't know how when or why R got the idea Buddhism annihiliates the ego; my view is the ego receives correction through it's own efforts and the help of guidance and even our family and friends, that what is builded is a character that becomes compassionate to the sufferings of others because it understands what suffering feels like and it's in our higher nature to become loving as a process of evolution of the soul.

but I don't feel one life only can assure graduation and attain for a single unit/ego all that it may wish to attain and experience. and I'm different. I've seen a few other glimpses of what was my self, as I know myself, in another time period or two. the only way for my self to realize my mistakes, passions going awry, glimpsing the inbetween station where I received loving assistance and instruction, I grew and evoluted through these glimpses.

if I had not have seen them, I'd still be wondering what life was about. but all that is personal stuff I realize. a mere belief to another, and some sadly, put me down because I say I have lived before.

but I won't do that to anybody. I will never put you down for your beliefs, because these other lives, I believe have caused me to feel and relate to others from what they are feeling. the joy is in knowing I can go on as myself, I can be all I can be and have as much lives as I need to do it in and don't need to rush to get everything done in one single life, although I would hardly want to waste time after being aware I'm the one responsible for my future life.

Many paths, many mansions, I believe they all lead to the same destination, but only with PUL can we understand each other, as that is what opens our minds to understand each other, our uniqueness has got to matter, or life has no meaning (personally)

I will say pure selfishness, the kind that hurts others just to watch them hurt, that is what would be annhiliated, not the ego, and the PUL it has made, the peace it has allowed to be built from its own gnashing of teeth.
and for all my new age savvy, I still fall back on "he sees the sparrow fall."

I subscribe to the veil of forgetfullness is laid upon our C1, so that the old soul can have life anew, too many memories is just baggage and hinders in that case, and there is that one last life, when you know your are graduating, there is the life, that makes each moment here sublimely important..I'm having the TIME of my life! no wait, the best time of all my lives put together!

ok, I don't want to disturb anyone's belief system. what I'd rather do, is when someone comes here and they say, ouch, I just lost a loved one to transition, what I like to do is tell them, you will see your loved one again, because I know they will, because of what I've seen on the other side.
its practically my only reason to stay alive. love to all, we are almost home free.

Hi guys. Just looking in to say that I'm away from home for a day or two but will reply ASAP.

OK, back at the ranch. (edited this morning)

Language is problematical, it's so hard to communicate accurately or to be quite sure what others mean. But here goes.

First off I'm not a highly trained Buddhist, and so may not be reflecting teaching accurately in some cases. But as you've said R there's an enormous range of views within Buddhism - to the point that  we're unlikely to be stuck to find a version you can work with or draw on to advantage.

But it certainly raises the point that what we perceive Buddhism to be can vary quite a bit depending on what part we've been exposed to, how it was taught, and how we interpreted it.

At the most basic level Tibetan and other Mahayana teaching sees different people as having differing levels of intellectual and spiritual capability, and as being at differing points on the path, and hence having differing teaching and practice needs.

The highest teachings around emptiness and Buddha nature (the higher realities) are very subtle, and easily misunderstood - they tend to circle meaning rather than to state it directly. They require a lot of intuition - too much linear thinking, literal interpretation of words and intellectual a thought process tends to run into trouble. There's also the case of the more basic Hinayana teachings which emphasise rule based living in a very normal physical reality while practicing meditation - they are aimed at the more limited/beginning student, and expressed in conventional language. (these levels of teaching build on each other as the student progresses)

Add to this other rarer strands of Buddhism emphasising ritual and repetitive practice rather than understanding and insight and it can all become a very confusing morass. Native Buddhism seems in some cases to even involve almost worship of the Buddha, but this would be regarded by most as a corruption. 'Indestructible Truth' and 'Secret of the Vajra World' by Reginald Ray (Shambhala) is the best single overview of the Tibetan Buddhist path that I know of.

Different people as before can connect very differently. How we respond being a reflection too of where we ourselves are. Especially you find people that get hung up on observance, chasing after teachers, ritual and specific beliefs - they often use these to self serving  and egotistical ends. They may become rather dry, pious and judgemental as a result. (a phenomenon that arises in all religious systems)

But that's not what's taught, it's recognised as a problem. I mentioned Chogyam Trungpa's 'Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism' before as setting out some of the traps.

Much of the view I tend to express is Tibetan Mahayana in flavour, but a lot is from my own reading rather than directly received teaching and probably reflects quite a lot of me.

It seems too that even at the same level there can be quite big differences in approach and emphasis - even between authorised teachers - with some handing higher stuff out to beginners, while others hold the same back for advanced students. Chogyam Trungpa was way out there in the way he in fact very radically stripped away cultural baggage (both Western and Eastern) to expose the core of the highest teachings in action. But not everybody 'got it'.

Eastern forms tend to be heavily ritualistic and to carry a lot of the trappings of their original culture. The same schools teaching in the West may be much less so, but it depends on the teacher. It's very far from being a monolith, and has a long history of evolving according to the local culture and particular needs of those receiving the teaching.

I wouldn't necessarily have picked up the same flavour R on those topics on which you express concern. For example.

Primordial (highest) mind is portrayed (and more importantly experienced) as very much alive (as the true basis of our being in fact), and as transformative at our interface with it - it's the source of basic goodness and of all of the higher instincts  - or Grace. PUL if you like. We run astray besically because the ego can become so noisy that it drowns it out, but it's still there.

The emphasis on practice and experiential learning in Buddhism makes it harder to get off track and unlikely it's going to differ greatly from other working traditions provided we can get far enough past ego to take it on this basis. (which is actually a big ask)

There's any number of higher beings, phenomena and entities (deities, asuras, emanations of the Buddhas etc) with which one can actively engage and work. Albeit very Buddhist and Eastern in description, but I think that's just a relic of the local culture. All are actually embodiments of aspects of the various levels of higher and more ordinary ego mind, and as such if correctly conceived must ultimately be culturally coloured descriptions of manifestations accessible by all from all cultures and traditions.

Working directly with forces and entities in the way we sometimes talk of here is however regarded as a high risk/high return deal due to the potential for getting sidetracked by ego into misusing capability or de-stablising mind, and is normally only responsibly taught in close teacher/student relationships to advanced students.

These are the Vajrayana or Tantric teachings. I'm not sure what the truth of this is, but I guess the proven reliability of teachings at the lower levels, and stories of misuse of higher abilities in Atlantis and some of the S American Indian traditions gives pause for thought. The saying is that the Vajrayana student is like a snake in a bamboo tube - it's straight up, or straight down and the stakes are very high both ways.

These higher teachings are not for the faint hearted, and go far beyond the sort of dabblings we usually talk of here. (in that they very purposely and quite aggressively target breakdown of the ego - which for the student feels like breakdown of him/her self) When fully engaged these approaches  produce selflessness or a mind capable of living with groundlessness, without a need for being propped up by beliefs. This is not a comfortable nor a risk free process. Hence the emphasis on working with a realised teacher, starting only after extensive preliminaries are completed and sufficient stability is achieved.

Practice is not standardised, although there seems to be a well understood spiritual path along which we evolve. (taught overtly only at the highest levels though - it's usually info. on an 'as needs' basis if you are a student - there's good reason for this) There's a myriad of practices which are carefully chosen from to suit the needs of differing students (which vary a lot) by a good teacher at the various stages.

At the lower levels it's much more standardised, basically because it's deemed that we need to first develop the required equanimity and stability of mind before attempting to work with higher practices - it takes years of just plain slog on the meditation cushion.

A major issue (a personal observation) with Buddhism in the West (perhaps in the East also) is the difficulty in accessing a skilled/realised teacher to work 1:1 with in this manner - this may give the impression of a one size fits all approach.

I'm not arguing against reincarnation Alysia. In fact the opposite, it seems to me very reasonable that as is taught it can take very many lifetimes to get the knots out of ourselves. It's hard to judge where we might be on the path, and there's a long tradition of valuing committed and dynamic engagement on the basic that while it's a bit risky that a cautious over conservative life delivers little by way of growth. Tibetan Buddhism is for example full of stories of thieves, murderers and brigands achieving realisation.

These lives may not all be on earth though, Buddhism postulates a series of realms we can move between. (although it regards human life as optimum for spiritual growth by providing the right balance of hardship and opportunity to grow) I suspect too (but don't know for sure) that it'd have no problem with the idea of our being reincarnated on other worlds for example. Exactly how the higher vibration level realities that surface in say theories of levels of the seven heavens map to Buddhist thought I haven't a clue. Exact mechanisms are not emphasised, at least not at the lower levels anyway. But I figure whatever the reality is it'll sort itself out when I get there unless I'm silly enough to get hung up on rigid beliefs.

Buddhism would definitely agree that attachment (to emotions, beliefs, material goods or to anything else) is a problem, although it would add aversion (fear of things)  and ignorance (not knowing how self/reality operates) to the list. Attachment and aversion are collectively termed 'grasping'. All act to prevent seeing things as they are, which in turn causes us to presume an individually existing self capable of acting independently of the surrounding reality, which in turn prevents us from living from love.

Ditto that learning to live through love is what its about. (but this may bring you places you might never have dreamed of when starting out - like dropping belief in existence of self and of this reality)

The above three are a lot about stripping away ego. Ego is not well defined at the levels I've read, but clearly in life there's stuff that's harmful because our attachment to it as a belief system blocks clear seeing. It also includes stuff that's needed just to allow us to function in the world which is useful. It's all dropped with death. When reborn we normally (apart from a few with high levels of recollection of past lives which anyway are only very partial) have to learn to handle ourselves in the new reality again - all that usually comes through is karma/attributes.

Buddhism suggests that once we achieve egolessness we can (barring we decide to continue being reborn to help others) transcend samasara or this time space cause/consequence reality. Basically (I think) because we hold it (dream it) in existence by our belief in the existence of it and of a separate independently existing self - once we see past the belief its optional.

Buddhism as above regards the above idea of an independent self and of the existence of the total reality that is samsara (this and the afterlife reality) as being a  delusion that we grasp after - that we mistakenly decide that body, thinking discursive mind and higher awareness are all inextricably linked as part of an individual entity (self or me) living in an independently existing reality.

And tend to hope/think/grasp after belief that it as a result can continue largely unchanged through the afterlife/bardos. When in fact as above most of what seems like 'self' (body and thinking mind) fall away after death and only core attributes/karmic tendencies survive to go on to build a new body and mind in the next life. The karma/attributes that make it through the afterlife/bardos seems to have no absolute existence either because they seem to get shed once we get over our attachment to beliefs.

This goes against the grain for most of us (we grasp after survival in the afterlife as we are in life), but its to hard to argue against after experiencing the separation of awareness and thinking mind in meditation.

This last is perhaps what makes reincarnation not quite what it may commonly be understood as.

As best I figure it primordial/unitary/absolute mind is not divided into chunks of which we each hold a part to be eventually brought back together at God level. (it's after all supposed to be unity) That said it simultaneously manifests in the individual, and is the source of the higher instincts. (loving tendencies and so on) In most of us it operates alongside ego.

It's the ego from the life just completed that gets blenderised or taken apart in the bardos/afterlife. Somewhere along the way this produces clear seeing of the past life - the awareness separates from the ego/karmic tendencies that were blinding/deluding/obscuring it. The karmic tendencies manifest externally as the wrathful and peaceful deities. If particularly frightening (we have lots of bad karma, or if we are fearful as a result of not having stabilised our mind enough through meditation practice in the past life) these can propel us into a very spiritually disadvantageous rebirth. (bad life circumstances, wrong realm or whatever) If we carry less negative karma and have good control of mind then we may have more control over the nature of our rebirth. Either way the life we reincarnate to (barring accidents) is presumably what we need to learn the lessons we need.

The attributes and karmic tendencies are somehow recombined with primordial awareness on rebirth in a new physical body to create a new being in the new life. Which then starts the process of learning to function in the new reality, and in doing so either builds more karma (in a disadvantageous or badly lived life), or gets rid of more of what it brought into the world. (in a spiritually advantageous life)

It's the perspective that gives rise to what's expressed in the central teaching of Buddhism, the Heart Sutra - 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form'. Meaning that individual egotistical self and samasara/this reality (form) has no absolute existence beyond egotistical self's belief in it. (its empty of reality) So our reality both exists (or is at least perceived as existing), but does not in any absolute sense do so.

Some eastern (Indian) teachings have tended towards teaching that how we live in this life consequently does not matter. Buddhism says that it does very much, because while if we can transcend it that it (the dream or the belief that we exist) ceases to exist from our new perspective and then does not matter. But that while we're in the dream (believing in the existence of a self and an surrounding reality)  that correct behaviour is required if we are to wake up.

The logic of this is that the suffering that results from wrong behaviours in the dream forces us into ever more intense attachment to the belief that the dream is real. e.g we harm others, so they turn on us. The resulting fear and suffering which is the result of a belief in a physical self that can be harmed actually strengthens our belief in the existence of that self. I think, I hurt, I fear so therefore I am.

Descartes it seems saw it only from the ego perspective.

;) Clear as mud.....

wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 9:43pm:

OK, back at the ranch. (edited this morning)...Some eastern (Indian) teachings have tended towards teaching that how we live in this life consequently does not matter. Buddhism says that it does very much, because while if we can transcend it that it (the dream or the belief that we exist) ceases to exist from our new perspective and then does not matter. But that while we're in the dream (believing in the existence of a self and an surrounding reality)  that correct behaviour is required if we are to wake up. The logic of this is that the suffering that results from wrong behaviours in the dream forces us into ever more intense attachment to the belief that the dream is real. e.g we harm others, so they turn on us. The resulting fear and suffering which is the result of a belief in a physical self that can be harmed actually strengthens our belief in the existence of that self. I think, I hurt, I fear so therefore I am. Descartes it seems saw it only from the ego perspective. ;) Clear as mud.....

Perhaps the "pain body" that Tolle describes....whether or not there is only one, or perhaps many...he speaks of a "pain body" which each of us carries with us, and we think it is real.

Excellent thread...

:) Thank you Blink. I guess the pain body Eckhardt talks of can vary from simply a conditioned response of mind to a particular circumstance (e.g. in a close relationship or situation where the pattern of behaviour has become conditioned to adopt the role of a victim - a part of the ego) to being the central theme of the dominant personality type. (the basis or predominant style of perception of almost the whole ego)

While his language can be quite different ET's in my view actually very closely aligned with Buddhist thought but  makes a point of drawing examples multiple traditions.

As an aside the enneagram is an ancient system used by some spiritual traditions like Sufism to characterise the  dominant personality (ego) types found in people. Its sometimes linked to the signs of the Zodiac too. I'm no expert but information here http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/  There's lots on the web and in books on the topic. Any given type can express in both positive and negative forms. Gjurdieff was keen on it.

Modern scientifically accepted personality typing methods like Myers Briggs map very closely to (and may have even drawn on) the enneagram.

On a different note I should add to the above that within Mahayana Buddhism that there tends to be two differing paths. The path of practice is mostly about meditation and experience, the path of study is about primarily academic study. The differing schools in Tibetan Buddhism emphasise these to differing degrees (see the Reggie Ray book referenced above if you'd like more information) - although some degree of both is regarded as usually being required for realisation.

The more academic/study based traditions are mostly monastic, the practice paths are often that of the yogi or the holy man who works mostly alone, often in seclusion. The Dalai Lama belongs to the Gelugpa school, probably the most academic. The Nyingma and Kagyu schools while still monastic traditions tend to be much more blended but emphasise practice very strongly.

All teach that the nature of life is that we all achieve realisation in the end - with or without teaching or practice. They argue however that the Buddhist path offers the potential to greatly reduce the number of incarnations required to learn enough to achieve realisation. The Vajrayana and Tantric practices even talk in terms of the possibility of 'realisation in this very life' - it's not that uncommon to read of individuals devoting their entire lifetime to intensive practice with this objective.

I've tried to set out as balanced a 'warts and all' picture above as I can as I think that many coming in contact with Buddhism tend to presume that it's pretty standardised when in fact there is a lot of variability.

I guess too that it's common to find pre-conceptions or myths about Buddhism being repeated which generally are not reflected in the teachings.

hi Ian, that was a large teaching on Buddhism, thanks, it appears there are many variables as u concluded, not just a black and white type of religion. I see religions as pathways, roads the mind walks down, like a mule would wear blinders, the mind is focused only on the roads, then I mention the variables are roads also within the same system, I like the way Buddhism says we all end up enlightened  as this is the way I focus, when I say I am on a heart path.

I don't take the pessimistic outlook and all work, no play type of philosophy that I am picking up from your words, this may be my interpretation of your thoughts and so I do a take from you, it's called relating.. :)

and then u may not be aware this is how your words come across, at least to me, what I've been called is an empath. I absorb other's emotion energy, whether its negative or positive. then I transmute it in my mind to arrive at positivity without judgment of the other guy; this like a task; as its said, one wants to run with the right crowd.

Buddhism is a path and though you say you are not a Buddhist, you are appearing as strong Buddhist nonetheless in your study of it. In the same way I do this!!! I will say to many I am not Christian. I am not a Jesus freak. Yet privately I am speaking to JC as if he were in the room with me, and I am contemplating what is the Christ mind and washing my mind constantly to see that when concerned with PUL, with a heart opening path.

so I will name myself mystic Christian or new age, and my bible is ACIM, as it simplifies to me, what life is about and that we all certainly like to be appreciated, above and beyond what is termed ego grasping principles, and untamed desires stem from that. Yet I do like to compare Buddhism to my heart path thing, I find basically the commonalities within all thought systems, as I focus on Oneness concepts and see humanity as a wave of individuals, but a wave nonetheless, who does "think" the thought "I am."

Yet by thinking the thought "I am" it is an act of self creation indeed, I see much joy in that I can be a self expressive person who can be free of restrictive type blocks and that I am real, what it is I build of myself here and now. I too follow Eckhardt's thinking although he's dry as a bone as concerning his style of writing, to see the guy on U-tube he's in a nirvantic state of joyful expression.

which leads me briefly to the Elias thought system, it's all good, express yourself, do not suppress yourself, but be always aware of what your underlying intentions are and be totally conscious of that in the moment, which takes practice in itself to be bringing to the fore what is unconscious into the conscious mind for expression and release, all within the we are one concept, the heart path.
this is a way to bypass pain, to allow yourself to express your truth, but yet to acknowledge the other has also the truth, as while it's all lies, it's also all truths, then you have nonduality state of mind, you arrive to say Namaste, I stand in the god place you stand in.

reading a book now "the Inner Life" goes along with TMI thought system. (we are probes, put down to probe the Earth for the sheer hell of it, or challenge perhaps of gaining experience without selling out our basic goodness)  there appears to be an astral life which means upon death this is one body which separates itself from the ego, which is our intrinsic self. we embody the astral body, astral material is emotional material of it's own life force, creative ability.

this astral body which holds elemental desire stuff, has a temporary life and works thru it's stuff on that heavenly plane of being. yet this is not toiling, it also includes playing. the working thru of stuff, when it's done, this body, or form, is leaving its stuff to decomposition, the body of the astral is transmuted into the higher mental planes as the work is done.

we have 7 bodies. this is more than a belief to me nowdays. it's exciting. I don't feel threatened in the least for having 7 bodies as I see mankind as Spirit, one with god, even if it is a subconscious "I am" presence, we see it that we are one, for them.

Hey Ian, I'm really glad to know you. as an empath, these are not just words to me, but the feeling is in my throat chakra, like bubbles right now, that I met you, thats what I mean about the heart path, you are suddenly free to express love, although there is that option it won't be accepted, it won't be received right away, it will be held for that one who it is directed at and when they are prepared to receive it, it will be dropped into their awareness, that they are appreciated.

and that is the most simple thought system of all, that we end up "saving" each other in that thing they called the atonement..to mean at-one.

Peace, alysia

;) You've got me figured. I am a bit too serious....