Satori !!!!
Sits for no man or God !!!!
Frank
spyny said:It's always dangerous to practice meditation (and everything like kundalini yoga, astral traveling) without an authentic master and teachings.
Because it's easy to make ego-trips / get crazy.
In Buddhism, it is said that meditation without knowledge, that is WITH ignorance, leads to animal rebirth.
Relaxation is one thing, but meditation brings either awakening, or stupor...stupidity!
The higher you climb, the greater you risk.
how long and how often have you practiced meditation and else so that you can state that?
I'm not saying that everybody has to have a master, but you seem to say that no one needs a master. If you do not, then we agree with each other, and in that case, your answer has practically no use.
I can tell you that I've met people getting -litterally- mentally ill by practicing meditation or rituals. Or after a spiritual retreat.
A novice practitionner who practices alone, despises masters and think he knows because he reads books and articles on the Internet, is a crank, a neo-hippy guru-of-a-sect-to-be, or just a mental of tomorrow.
...
And often the motivation to practice without a master, is arrogance - thinking that one is wise or strong enough to make it on one's own, and not wanting to lose a certain control over oneself, I mean being guided by someone. Because, our friend Mister Ego never wants to lose control, he is the one that has to keep the power.
Satori said:Obviously you didn't read the entire thread; otherwise, you would have known the answer to that! I have been meditating since the mid-'70s and have even taught meditation classes over the years.
Of course the problem isn't meditation. It's the very person who practices it. I think we agree on this point.Meditation has never been a problem for anyone, unless they are involved with some type of false guru cult type of situation, in which case ANYTHING that transpired would not be good! But meditation, in and of itself, is not a problem. Quite the contrary--it can be extremely beneficial!!
It happens that most of us, and I include myself -considered normal- are "mentally ill", the "self" just keeps the balance. You learn that in psychology...and Buddhism.I think you are confusing the benefits of meditation with the effects of some types of pathology that some people are operating off of to begin with! There are a lot of mentally ill people who are drawn to meditation but who would do better to get their mental illness under control BEFORE beginning a meditation practice!
A novice practitionner who practices alone, despises masters and think he knows because he reads books and articles on the Internet, is a crank, a neo-hippy guru-of-a-sect-to-be, or just a mental of tomorrow.
...
And often the motivation to practice without a master, is arrogance - thinking that one is wise or strong enough to make it on one's own, and not wanting to lose a certain control over oneself, I mean being guided by someone. Because, our friend Mister Ego never wants to lose control, he is the one that has to keep the power.
I'm afraid Buddha would have to disagree with you on that one!!! LOL. And so would a LOT of monks and lamas!
Also, let's not confuse a "master" with a "teacher." You keep referring to "masters," yet you also fail to point out all of the abuses that have occurred through the master/disciple relationship over the years.
I don't give any credit to that kind of statements : do you know all the spiritual practitionners on Earth?Frankly, more harm has come from the abuses of gurus/masters--even well-meaning ones!--than has ever come from someone simply studying on their own.
That's why i didn't understand why you said lama's would not agree with me. But as I said, you also have sufism, and what about Zen? do you know in the history of Japanese Zen, a great master who didn't have a master? I bet you don't.However, I will ad one caveat: In the area of Tibetan tantric practices, it is considered essential to have a master.
I guess all the hippies would want the kundalini practice available for everyone. I think none of the genuine practitionners wish that. "Guru" isn't a word from India?There is still disagreement about kundalini practice in general, however. Some say you absolutely have to have a guru to guide you in that area, while others disagree. I know shamans in the Native American tradition would disagree with that, while most Hindu gurus would say that it is essential. It just depends on the people and system involved, really.
I think it depends on the master.Personally, I'm not a big fan of the master/disciple relationship, as I think it can be extremely dangerous and cause way too many problems when not handled properly.
I agree with that.But that's my personal choice, and I believe each person should be free to choose whatever is right for them. The only thing I object to is someone pushing one way or the other, without simply educating so that other people can make an individual choice one way or the other.
I'm sorry, but i gave some explanations. And maybe people will give more credits to what the Buddha said, and the experience of great masters than yours. And I did talked about my own experience, as I said I've met people who got crazy after years of meditation, kundalini etc. (and they were "normal" in the beginning, as much as you and me).That is why I felt the need to respond to your original post. It seemed you weren't simply educating but, rather, advocating a particular view. For instance, you'll notice I have only talked about my own views and personal experience on this thread when asked by other members, including yourself.
if a master demands you that, he's not a genuine master. I think you mix things up. For example, I wouldn't call the Dalai Lama just a teacher, he is master.However, I should point out that so there's no confusion that I do think it's nice to have teachers, imparting their knowledge either through direct instruction or books, videos, etc.--just not "masters" who demand you give up total control to them.
spyny said:I'm impressed. But the amount of time doesn't necessarily mean anything, especially if you've practiced in a unproper way, not that i want to contradict myself.
Of course the problem isn't meditation. It's the very person who practices it. I think we agree on this point.
It happens that most of us, and I include myself -considered normal- are "mentally ill", the "self" just keeps the balance. You learn that in psychology...and Buddhism.
Therefore someone who believes he is normal should question himself many times... And we think that crazy people are only those in psychatric hospitals
. Indeed, Buddha said we are fundamentally ill, hence our "confusion."
Then, to know if you need a master (and you don't need to take it in the sense of a master of the ancient times), you need to know how much you are or are not "ill". And for that, you need someone more advanced than you are to tell you. A mad man will hardly say he's mad.
I'm not that sure. Buddha said "he would manifest" again under the form of "masters" (I guess he said "guru" in his language, which means master or guide), in order to guide people. The importance of masters is that they are the closest guides to ordinary people.
Well, have you been to a monastery ? because it seems they are not one monk without a master (a lama), a lama without his own lama (except for deprecated lineages).
Buddha was a master, his disciples became masters and so on.
It is true that many abuses have occurred (though saying many isn't meaningful, because relative), but always by fake gurus, like Osho Rajneesh. You're not saying if genuine gurus have made abuses, and I believe this is not the case, that's my point.
I mean, isn't that obvious that a fake gurus make abuses?
How many doctors abuse of their patients? we have to be viligent as often as possible, that's life.
"Master" and "teacher" could mean the same or not the same thing depending on your definition, that' how some people get deceived.
I don't give any credit to that kind of statements : do you know all the spiritual practitionners on Earth?
And of course I'm sure the media deal with almost only the gurus of sects, so you hear more about "bad things" than "good ones."
That's why i didn't understand why you said lama's would not agree with me. But as I said, you also have sufism, and what about Zen? do you know in the history of Japanese Zen, a great master who didn't have a master? I bet you don't.
I guess all the hippies would want the kundalini practice available for everyone. I think none of the genuine practitionners wish that. "Guru" isn't a word from India?
I think it depends on the master.
Anyway, I think you push it too much to the extreme. By master, I meant someone who has a longer experience and a certain degree of realization, to prevent you from fall into the traps of the path. And to be sure that person is a genuine master, you have to check by yourself, ask how other masters you trust think of him, etc.
And it's not about believing blindly what he says, but giving him trust for the things he do as you feel they are right...like a doctor actually. Don't go to a doctor you don't trust!
A teacher of a lesser quality is fine too, be he might make more (many?) mistakes, and as long as you don't trust him, it won't bring a lot of benefit. There's saying in the West like "who risks nothing gets nothing".
I agree with that.
I'm sorry, but i gave some explanations. And maybe people will give more credits to what the Buddha said, and the experience of great masters than yours. And I did talked about my own experience, as I said I've met people who got crazy after years of meditation, kundalini etc. (and they were "normal" in the beginning, as much as you and me).
Let me quote Gampopa, Tibetan doctor, scholar, monk and Tantric master, disciple of Milarepa, from the book "Gems of Dharma, Jewels of Freedom" :
It has been reasoned: '...given that you wish to attain omniscience, you need to enter into relation with good mentors because by yourself you know neither how to accrue spiritual wealth nor how to dispel obscurations.'
if a master demands you that, he's not a genuine master. I think you mix things up. For example, I wouldn't call the Dalai Lama just a teacher, he is master.
True faith is not forced by the master, it comes from the heart of the disciple. It is not - again - compulsory to trust a master, or a doctor. You have to check for yourself first. If you don't trust your doctor, and you don't tell him everything, and you don't follow his prescription, the diagnosis will be erroneous, the treatment not efficient, and I doubt the doctor will heal you. And it often takes a lot of time to trust a master, but there's no hurry.
In short, if your trust of faith makes you blind, then it's neither trust or faith, it's stupidity.
I hope you understand the analogy with the doctor, this is crucial.
spyny said:You have the right to see fear in me (shouldn't it be projection), and aggression against you. But i don't feel it that way.
I just see that you are not capable to refute my statements by simple explanations. All you can do is to react with a feeling of rejection, unable to argue point after point.
That shows that what you say is based on suppositions, on I-feel-it-that-way and not on a real study of Buddha's an other genuine masters' teachings.
I think that my posts perfectly match the subject, which is (online) Meditation. My message is, in short, "you can learn meditation online, but if you wanna go far, you are likely to need a master". I'm not trying to attack you, but to tell people that meditation is not another kind of relaxation, and people know how much nonsense is told on the Internet. Well, the spiritual path is not without danger.
If I'm taking the analogy with the doctor, it's because it is often used in Buddhism, should you be outraged.
Then, I don't understand why you're talking about "psychic experience", because the spiritual path has nothing to do with New Age search for super powers, but with *spirituality*.
And it's not because that man (you like to refer to - did he traumatised you?), who seems to be manipulated, use a "traditional" but genuine analogy as used in Buddhism in scriptures and by nowadays masters, that it is invalid.
It's not because Christians kill people that Christianity is invalid or erroneous.
When I read you first sentences, questions rise :
You don't see any doctor ? what do you do when you're sick? maybe you're never sick? You never go to a dentist?
Of course I consult a doctor, a dentist and so on. Because I don't have the capacity of healing myself without advice, that's my point.
What you call fear, I call it realism and honesty. Perhaps if you or your pupils have a cancer, you will tell them not to see a doctor and heal it by meditating alone? I wonder...
You don't like to be questioned, do you?
Because I'm ready to be, and if you have sensible arguments to contradict me, don't hesitate to tell me, rather than keeping on saying "you're completely full of fear" or "why are you attacking?" with a defensive behavior. I'm not afraid of hearing the truth.