Let's put some detail on this paragraph. Nature Insights was about my Insights either from meditation or otherwise, and was primarily connected with Buddhism. Nature Health was started when I began my food journey with macrobiotics, and has been a description of healing my physical body. Recently my journey has taken me into consideration of chakras and elements, and these three components clearly point to the three parts of Zandtao - mind, energy and body. There is no separation of the learning as I perceived in Nature Insights and the healing that was Nature Health and then looking at energy. This learning and healing is one. As I develop insights I learn more about myself and this begins to heal, as I heal myself then I am healthy and in a better position to develop insights. Awareness of learning and healing is one. With this consolidation then who I am uniquely in my journey is much clearer, and knowing this I am in a position to see myself more clearly as Zandtao - learning and healing myself in order to present Zandtao. This blog is a preparation for the Treatise of Zandtaoj. And more?

I was looking into chakras yesterday - reading the book "The Chakras and the Human Energy Field" by Shafika Karagulia and Dora van Gelder Kunz. The book is presented academically, and attempts to academise teachings on the chakras, specifically those Charles W Leadbeater. In truth I see no academy, I see a description of a system as a hypothesis and little more academic corroboration - so far. In its attempt to be academic it loses so much because how can academia understand these things. Empirical observation is an academic method yet academia tends to reject it. Chakra observations cannot be subject to scientific scrutiny because science cannot make machines to measure. So fundamentally, academising such teachings is futile.

Writing the book however isn't, and it was interesting to read on p35:-

"Yet it must not be inferred that the chakras are separate from the fields themselves, as might be implied by the way they appear in the diagrams. They are vortices which concentrate the energy within the fields, just as whirlpools are formations in and out of water." For me this is highly significant as it helps further negate "I" by propounding that the chakras function as vortices within the energy fields. Taking this further we are chakras, and chakras are vortices of parts of oneness. By considering chakras as vortices and that these vortices belong to the whole, there is clearer identification with unity and less with a separate body belonging to I. The body is the more apparent aspect of human separateness. As the body forms around the chakras, and the chakras are part of Unity, then the body is formed around part of Unity - no separation.

On the healing side I today focussed on the throat chakra. I discussed my lung condition but in truth I should have said "lung and throat condition" as they are to do with my teaching. Through the use of compassion in the throat chakra I began to free the throat of its history but there is a way to go yet.

In the book Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry by Terry Clifford [pp108-109] she gives a very interesting description of the process of dying, her interpretation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Here is a pricis:-

At death the five elements dissolve and she suggests one should know the stages of the dissolution. First earth dissolves into water, earth is located at the navel chakra. Second water dissolves into fire, water is located at the subtle hear centre. Third fire dissolves into wind, fire is located at the throat centre. Fourth wind dissolves into space, wind is located at the lower "secret" genital chakra.

Earth -> Water -> Fire -> Wind -> Space

Compare this with Dan Reid's chart on p26 of The Tao of Health Sex and Longevity:-

Generative (Mother/Son):-

Metal -> Water -> Wood -> Fire -> Earth

And suppressive (Victor/vanquished):-

Fire -> Metal -> Wood -> Earth -> Water

On p74 there is a typical chakra correspondence table. The Tibetan system does not have as many chakras as the system I have come to use:-

Chakra	Head	Throat		Navel	Genital
Element	Ether/space	Fire	Water	Earth	Air
Colour	White	Red	Blue	Yellow	green

On p27 of Dan Reid's book there is another chakra table, and part of it is:-

Element	Wood	Fire	Earth	Metal	Water
Colour	Green	Red	Yellow	White	Black

Chakra Summary table so far:-

BZ Chakra	BZ Colour	Tibetan Elements	Tibetan Colour
Crown	Lavendar
Head	Light Blue	Ether/Space	White
Throat	Royal Blue	Fire	Red
Heart	Green	Water	Blue
Solar Plexus	Yellow
Navel	Amber	Earth	Yellow
Root	Red	Air	Green

In Complete Guide to Chi Gung Dan Reid [pp67-69] discusses the chakras:-

Crown	Head	Throat	Heart	Solar Plexus	Navel	Root
White	Violet	Sky-blue	Light green	Yellow/Gold	Orange	Red
	Brain/Pituitary	Throat/Thyroid	Heart/Thymus	Solar Plexus/Adrenal	Navel/Testes & ovaries	Perineum/Anal and sexual orifices

Reid says that only three chakras are used in Taoist practices:-

Navel (dan-tien) - vital essence and body

Solar Plexus - fire of emotions and ego

Head - spiritual practice

In the Ayurveda book I have, these correspondences are given:-

Crown	Head	Throat	Heart	Solar Plexus	Navel	Root
White	Blue	Violet	green	Yellow	Orange	Red

And two Indian references add these elements with changing colours (online ref):-

Head

Crown	Head	Throat	Heart	Solar Plexus	Navel	Root
Violet	Indigo	Blue	green	Yellow	Orange	Red
		Ether	Air	Fire	Water	Earth

Chilel Correspondences:-

Crown	Head	Throat	Heart	Solar Plexus	Navel	Root
	Ying Tan	Dao Bao			Tan tien

Japanese Correspondences:-

Navel - Hara

All of the above tends to support Simon's nihilist position as intellectually there is no agreement. But one would not expect intellectual agreement when there is no objective measure, this is a prerequisite for the intellect to avoid accepting knowledge that would remove the intellectual ego and its self-importance. For me the most important observation about chakras is the description of the Tibetan Book of the Dead in which in death the body decays element by element. This clearly demonstrates that we are the elements, and there is no process of a separate I dying.

Then there is an important connection to the chakras. Karma is the primordial chakras. This means that when Karma decides on the rebirth, it creates the human channel that is the chakras and throughout life energy is attracted to these chakras and this attraction builds up the human. It is this chakra Tai Chi or ridgepole that we fundamentally are. Our energetic relationship to this ridgepole is an essential part of life and essential to Zandtao, or in Chinese terms (Dan Reid) Essence, Energy and Mind.

But how do I take that fundamental truth further? Firstly do I accept the Tibetan observation as fact, I tend not to as I am not into Tibetan systems. I lean towards the Chinese system of elements so I would tend towards a Chinese Book of the Dead scenario based around this elemental system:-

Fire -> Metal -> Wood -> Earth -> Water

Having used this epistemology to lead to a greater understanding of a separate I, what else do I want to use I for? Health. I have always related to Chinese healing, initially acupuncture, Tai Chi, Chi Gung and then Paul Pitchford. This I will still follow. I will therefore need to learn the Chinese system of health and develop my own relations with chakras as the Chinese system does not talk of all the 7 chakras as Dan Reid has said. However I personally tend to. I can develop a system that works for me because these systems are not universal, there is a level of individuality - again as Simon suggests. But that individuality needs to be worked on supplementing existing knowledge and not replacing it - his fundamental intellectual error.

One such replacement has been the colours of the chakras. Above I have described the colour system that I have worked with, recently I have begun to replace that colour coding with compassion - Gary Zukav in the Heart of the Soul replaces it with Love and Trust. Breathing in Compassion and breathing out hate and anger is just as healthy.

Where do we go from here? One purpose of this understanding is healing, I have used Pitchford's understand to help heal myself. I need to develop my understanding of his healing system - the Chinese system, but that will take time and it is not urgent. Does understanding that there are the five elements - fire, metal wood earth water - have any implications? Where does consciousness fit into it - does it imply an element space or does that matter?

Firstly it is important to recognise that mixed ability means that wherever you are on the Path is great. Joy is the reward for being on the Path, and Joy occurs wherever you are along the Path if you are "doing your best". (Just an aside here - I have been reading The Four Agreements and they are an excellent code of life - see below). This is important to understand in terms of enlightenment - I assume (irony with the 4 Agreements). I am clearly not enlightened so it is difficult to talk about enlightenment - I must make assumptions. But there is great frustration in seeking the end of the Path only, numerous people talk of this seeking as a spiritual frustration and it is clearly a life lesson; wanting to be something one cannot be is a deep frustration - spiritual or otherwise. Accept where you are on the Path and do your best, and your reward will be Joy or Happiness

Secondly there is only where you are at the moment. On reflection I can think that there have been a number of insights in my life. When I was young these insights brought great ecstasy - of course I embellished being young. I would wander lonely as a cloud seeking insight and the joy they would bring. As a result this soon stopped, although occasionally I would be hit by a blast of meditation joy in those sporadic meditation sittings. But now I can't remember those insights, they are a part of me but forgotten - except what is recorded on this website - either in blogs or in stories. In a linear sense I have moved along the Path, but in a practical sense these insights have become a part of my consciousness, have been accumulated and then forgotten - not attached to. The Path is a process of Insight, and so the Joy is the Insight now - that is the Path. In mixed ability terms the Path as a linear concept is fraught, the Path is the insight Now, and the Joy is the reward of the Now. Do not attach to insights, just do your best, insights will come up and become now. This is the reality of the mixed ability, do not perceive of the mixed ability in a linear sense but perceive that all that matters is doing your best where you are at now, and Joy will be your reward.

Stagnation is a possible weakness. If we hold onto the insights then new insight does not develop. Our journey on the Path stagnates and we become embedded in the past - the prior insight. As such the reward that we receive diminishes. Associated with our Path is a level of Happiness, and this level of Happiness accumulates depending on how much we fulfil our Path. Do we all have the potential for the same happiness? Is HHDL happier than me or the happy Joe the Plumber? I cannot answer that, I cannot be two people. Why should we measure? Except that we would like to be as happy as we can be, and that means following the Path.

Trust in the Path. The Path brings us Joy, but maybe we want to cling to the Joy that we gained in the past insight - some of those bells and banjos experiences. Now each new insight is met and that is it, no more bells and banjos. But I am happier. Between the bells and banjos there was some sadness. Without the bells and banjos there is a general happiness, a comfort, a lack of unnecessary striving. Trust in the Path. When the Path is insight, there is a new insight - that's it. If I don't blog it, it clogs me up, but beyond that there is little. It just happens. But with the meditation that Joy is part of my daily life, and that's enough - well more than enough, what more can you ask for? Insight, beach swimming, good health, what more?

Four Agreements

1) Be impeccable with the word.

2) Don't take things personally.

3) Don't make assumptions.

4) Always do your best.

There is a comparative notion - mind can be perceived as both point and wave. On the 8-fold Path two are Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration:-

Right Mindfulness--samma sati

Right Concentration--samma samadhi

Right Concentration can be perceived as one-pointedness and Right Mindfulness as the wave of understanding.

I have begun using this in meditation. It started with Shikantaza. As a result I started with the "sitting now". This made me realise that the insight meditation was taking me all over the place, and whilst I was developing in some senses the mind was losing shape. Shikantaza gave it shape. But then Shikantaza practised wrongly begins to close in insight with its emphasis on concentration. Now meditation has two approaches. Calming the mind focussing on the still waters of the heart. And then a variation of shikantaza where the mind rests one-pointedly in the hara, rather than sitting now it focuses on the mind being one-pointed.

There are a number of paradoxes in meditation, not with regards to the 4 Noble Truths, but the way people say follow this system or that. I personally had never come to terms with insight and concentration but now understand there is both - as in Magga.

Here is where the body's correspondences come in. From Reid's Tao of Health, Sex and Longevity we have on p 27:-

Element	Wood	Fire	Earth	Metal	Water
Yin	Liver	Heart	Spleen	Lung	Kidney
Yang	Gall Bladder	Small Intestines	Stomach	Large Intestine	Bladder

By promoting the health of these organs I am promoting the health of the element. These elements are in a sense noumenal, and therefore cannot be directly addressed.

Reid gives further indications on [p27]:-

Element	Wood	Fire	Earth	Metal	Water
Sense	Sight	Words	Taste	Smell	Hearing
Nourishes	Muscles	Blood Vessels	Fat	Skin	Bones
Expands into	Nails	Colour	Lips	Body Hair	Hair on Head
Liquid	Tears	Sweat	Saliva	Mucus	Urine
Temperament	Depressed	Emotions up & down	Obsession	Anguish	Fear
	Anger	Joy	Sympathy	Grief
Flavours	Sour	Bitter	Sweet	Pungent	Salty

You can use this table to interpret the quality of the element.

Here is a bit of theory I like. At rebirth Karma decides on what work needs doing, and that is the Seed. This Seed becomes you, a kind of Soul, in manifestation. On manifestation the soul-seed attracts the energy that is needed to form "you". This energy enters the soul-seed through the chakras that are the next step in the manifestation of the Seed. Throughout life these chakras take in the energy that make up "you as your life", then at death the energy leaves you and Karma begins the process again. According to the Buddha to escape this cycle of samsara, birth and rebirth, you need to attain Nirvana. Whilst I believe I have attained insights in my life, I don't foresee my attaining that level of permanent insight that I conceive of as Nirvana.

During our lives this Seed has a Path but we stray from this Path. It appears as if there are two steps to this Path. The first step, we grow up with baggage assigned by Karma, and the second step is that we try to get rid of this baggage by following the True Path. From the first step we are connected to parents for Karmic purpose, and then in our second step our baggage presents to us as mental and physical disease, the second step being healing. Our mental disease could be considered as ignorance so this part of the step is learning. Our physical disease is easily considered when you look at the way our bodies degenerate, and so we need to live healthily for our bodies to regenerate. With our healthy bodies we can provide the conditions for our minds to learn.

But there is also energy, and this is something very difficult to understand - especially for westerners. In the West we do not recognise energy as part of man. The West tends to see the process as primarily physical. A baby is born, grows up physically, and then dies. There might be a soul involved somewhere, mind is not clear but is connected to the brain, and there is no definite western understanding that there is a separate sense of mind or consciousness. Compare this with the East where there mind as the sense of consciousness, and there is chi and prana.

I don't know much about how people use prana, but in chi gung there are exercises for taking in energy and Chi Gungsters encourage breathing exercises - I guess similar to the way people use prana. I use Chilel, a chi-gung technique, and it focuses on taking energy into three centres, and these correspond to three of the chakras in the chakra system I recognise - the navel chakra - tan tien, heart chakra - dao bao, and head chakra - ying tan. (There is also MIng men - kidneys, that might correspond to the spleen and some systems talk of a spleen chakra.) Chilel only asks that you take in energy to these three chakras, push far away - take in the chi etc. I find this chilel very beneficial.

This is a reasonable representation of the chakras I use. The red I think of as the root chakra, and is based at the coccyx. The navel chakra is slightly above where the red is in the diagram. The solar plexus chakra is half-way between the belly button and the bottom of my chest plate. The heart chakra is slightly lower than the green. The colours I used are similar. The blue of the throat chakra is royal - richer, the violet of the head chakra is light blue, and the lavender of the crown chakra is lighter.

But, as I have said, I have stopped using colours - well I said I used colours in fact I used the words for the colours because I couldn't visualise them substantively. Now I breathe in compassion, love and trust.

From this diagram you can see that the chakras are more than are used in the chilel system - and generally in Chinese health I think. I am sure the system compensates for this but I don't know how. If it is important to you contact Dan Reid or check his books - A Complete Guide to Chi-Gung for example, found through my bookblog. As I have always been too eclectic I dabble a bit with the chi and a bit with the chakras. So for chi exercises I use chilel but for broader energy work I use all the chakras, as I said by breathing in compassion, love and trust (CLT).

Now this approach is very minimal, but here is how it works for me - but I do have a long way to go. Recently I mentioned that I was worried about mucus and phlegm so I have been focussing on the heart and throat chakra in my breathing. When I do chilel, I do a few body exercises to help with my knee and my neck, and I do a meditation to finish off breathing CLT into my chakras. So I have recently been breathing in CLT to the heart and throat, and for the more physical I have also used tiger balm on my heart and throat as well as nostril breathing in eucalyptus oil. The chest is not completely cleared but from giving me the flu it is good for breathing.

Yesterday I got in the middle of an outburst between wife and husband, and at the end I felt quite weak. I realised that I need to work on the solar plexus chakra, and started this morning - CLT in the solar plexus. I keep imagining B's reaction to reading this - a science-only friend.

I am not at all satisfied with my understanding of chakras but they are healing vortices connected to universal energy that is part of the Tao that is the Universe - or more relevant to me the Earth - Gaia. Incorporating vortices that provide unity, the soul-seed is a design within that unity - or is the soul-seed only the vortices?

Much talk of chakras is speculation, for example there are numerous grandiose depictions of chakras. Here is one:-

This is not true, yes it is I can see it because I am clairvoyant. You can't see it, sad you are not clairvoyant. Difficult argument to sustain. Here is a theospohpical model from C W Leadbeater's Chakras:-

As seen by clairvoyance - same argument.

Clairvoyance is difficult. A friend visited a clairvoyant who gave him a health reading that was accurate, however he didn't have enough money to finish the treatment and so be able to give me a deeper report. As in this blog it is clear that description of the chakras is not universally consistent, it might however be interesting to scientifically gather together renowned clairvoyants and see if their perception of the chakras were similar.

Here is a summary of some of the theosophical system. When I was younger I spent a year being heavily into theosophy, but it was rational mind fodder - interesting but appealing to the rational. For me now genuine knowledge has to be felt. I don't know how I am going to feel the chakras but that is where I want to go. Being disturbed by emotions and so telling me solar plexus chakra is weak is a feeling that I want to develop, healing the chakras can then advance my learning. OK, to theosophy:-

From the Tao there is the Logos, that which is empty but cannot be described. From the Logos there are 7 rays that connect to the chakras and there are 3 outpourings that correspond to the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and Will, Wisdom and Activity. Maybe also Atma, Buddhi and Manas. These 7 rays feed the chakras in some way so Seed and soul-seed (my words) can connect to the Logos. I am sure more details can be gained by reading theosophical works - free books at:-

Theosophical books

To be perfectly honest I got "rational systems" overload and gave up. Maybe more later.

Have to think where I go next with the chakras, at the moment it is the doing - CLT.

I am not sure how meaningful this is, but I note it for completeness - taken from "Chakras and the Human Energy Field" by Karagulla and Gunz [p36]

Chakra	Crown	Head	Throat	Heart	Solar Plexus	Navel	Genital
Gland	Pineal	Pituitary	Thyroid and Parathyroid	Thymus	Pancreas/Adrenals

And here is a Reiki chakra table of correspondences:-

So I have to look at how I feel about the systems and whether they can benefit my journey. Firstly they can detract from my journey because the intellect can get hooked on these rational behemoths. I have recollections of sitting outside an old English mansion in the green belt of North London with these theories swilling around the surface of my mind, I even remember some old guy commenting to that effect (whilst he was right I remember meeting him some time later in Camberley and hearing that he lived off stocks and shares - at that time I rejected him for this; maybe more people would do the same after the recent global turmoil caused by manipulators). My rational mind was fascinated by all of this but what did I truly gain? To be quite honest I have no idea. Soon after my theosophy year I began drinking again, got sucked into politics (with a spiritual proviso), and when I returned to my spiritual journey in Africa there seemed nothing left of theosophy. Yet theosophy has always been on the periphery of my journey, the question really is "should all these rational systems stay there?" Or perhaps the position should be that if the systems are rational leave them alone and incorporate those parts of the systems which become felt.

All of this theosophy came about because of chakras. In the West theosophy appears at the moment to be chakra central, yet when I start to read of chakras - Leadbeater, Besant etc - I just find all those systems again - and the wonderful charts. But what do I feel? More or less nothing. I went back to Annie Besant and "man and his bodies". So far it makes sense, and it contradicts nothing I know - a good sign. Starting with the etheric body, this explains how chi gets into the body, chi or prana are delivered throughout the physical body by this etheric double. The question that now comes to my mind is this "the chi gets there so why do we need a construct of etheric double?" But then etheric double does explain ghosts somehow, so maybe there is value in the notion. Of course for clairvoyants there is no notion the etheric double is visual, so for them there is purpose - for me I am still not sure. Etheric double is a nice way of explaining, it fits and for that reason I am going to use it as a way of explaining how chi gets into the body. But does it provide more? I don't know yet.

But I must not forget that the etheric double is part of an etheric plane - global chi energy. This is not separate yet it appears to be described as separate man's body. I would expect separation if it is a rational system so maybe there is confusion here. Am I being sucked into systems again? Agggghhhh theosophy.

The next is the astral body - or desire body. This again makes common sense. The Buddha talks about attachment to craving, and AB talks about how the desire body has subtlety which reacts to the influences on it. If your desires are of the physical the desire body is more dense, and if more spiritual the body is more subtle. There is discussion of this occurring through vibrations but I don't fell these vibes so I don't know for sure what that means. Again it makes sense but I don't feel it. What I am certain of is what the Buddha says in the 4NT, that the problem is attachment to craving. No attachment - no desire body, less attachment - more subtle desire body then what? Haven't finished reading, maybe there is something useful? This body could be another construct?

Man and his bodies began with the actual physical body. It primarily spoke about the importance of taking care of the body. Although she did not mention exercise she spoke of the importance of eating healthy food and how the body automatically moves towards healthy food once you give it a chance. I forgot to start with this body because I have done all that.

It still feels as if I am dealing with systems, but they do fit on with what I feel. Worth pursuing but I have to be careful not to get sucked into the swirl of surface systems that dogged my theosophy year, gave me such excitement, and yet in the end maybe left me with nothing.

But what Zandtao is truly about is harmonising mind, energy and body - or with the theosophy bodies. But then you must also say it is harmonising the chakras and the elements. And not only this you are not just harmonising internally but externally - harmonising with Nature. So Zandtao is just about harmonising anything!!! So here it is - Zandtao is harmonising whatever needs to be harmonised. Well, isn't that useful?

OK, I wouldn't be writing if I wasn't going to say anything, but this harmony is so vast I am not sure what I have to say. First of all Buddhism as I have practised it is too mind. Clearly Theravada appeals to the intellectuals but balancing the intellect with faith is not enough. I have heard exercise discussed but what about chi? Now none of this balance can occur without control of the mind but that is not enough. Energy is energy and making conscious use of energy is part of the balancing process. Now mind is most important but the Buddhism institution is stuck - as all institutions are. Since Mahachula (going there discussed) I have thought of the establishment's failure to take advantage of healthy eating when it is not dependent on almsround, but the institution certainly does not promote healthy eating. How much does Buddhism discuss chi or prana? But there are advantages to the Buddhist institution but individuals must always move on beyond the institution - within or without.

Tibetan goes more into chakras, and with Buddhism's links to India there will be chakras somewhere but where? My journey has taken me to chi and chakras outside the Buddhist framework because that is where I first met it. I have no reason to doubt that within Buddhism this is addressed but it is not mainstream Theravada - or Littlebang Theravada. There is nothing in where I am going, say with theosophy, that contradicts Buddhism, but exoterically it is not supported either.

So in meditation and chi gung I began to focus on harmonising, and immediately I felt weakness in certain of the chakras and a sense that I was too much mind. Recent moves to shikantaza have stopped and I have sought chakra balance in meditation as well as when doing Chi Gung and lying in bed. This has been mostly the solar plexus chakra - not surprising with the GERD and the head chakra promoting pure mind.

Reading of the astral body leads to an understanding of dreams, people can help in lay life but they can also help on the astral plane in dreams. That sounded wonderful but I am not sure how much - getting sucked into systems again? But I woke up with a dream that this old woman having been pronounced dead in an operating theatre was kept alive at my insistence on getting something. What do you make of that? Throughout the night I was conscious of the need for compassion in the solar plexus chakra to help the kidneys and spleen. It is all unclear except for the fact that there is much to come to terms with in my search for harmony.

My chakra healing has already entered the arena of dubious psychic practices but there are plenty of people who have gone there. Chilel uses some of the chakra centres, and Gary Zukav's "Mind of the Soul" uses chakra healing. Less socially acceptable is lying in bed for a good part of the morning and breathing in compassion through the chakras whilst dozing off to sleep. I want to point out that my mind has the potential for creating illusion, or rather subscribing to illusions that are not illusions of the norm of society. On the fringe as this is I have to be careful what I say, this is not backed by any established theory except theosophy, and whilst theosophy has some credibility they could by most be called cranks. At the same time I remember being sucked into theosophy systems, and there is no doubt at all that my imagination took me to inappropriate areas of glamour and self-importance. I cannot remember where but it would be of the ilk of thinking of discussing with Masters. Now I won't read books where people have made such claims - see ACIM warning and "The Disappearnce of the Universe lying on my shelf.

Now I have been prepared to make a stance based on my experience but I am reaching into areas that I am not sure what I am experiencing. OK let me try to write down about those. Theosophy talks about three bodies, etheric double, astral and mental, and within the mental it talks of the lower mental and causal. Now the etheric double whilst sounding spooky is little more than a chi body. I use chi, I always have in acupuncture and with Tai Chi and now Chilel, so chi needing a body before it can affect the physical body adds little to the credulity or not of chi work. Then we have the astral body and the astral plane so now we are in cloud-cuckoo land, but before I talk about that I want to talk of the mental bodies. I like the notion of a mental plane with thoughts flyng everywhere, this explains to me why we experience thoughts that are clearly not our own but are attracted by the thoughts we already have. And then there is the causal body which accumulates the good intentions and actions, and this non-personal body is the vortex that is me, and is the impersonal source of Billnext.

In meditation and during chakra healing I am withdrawing into the causal body. Now withdrawing to a point in meditation is of course good, but withdrawing into the causal body - debatable. However I am not attaching to the etheric, astral or lower mental, and that is reasonable - whether that means I an withdrawing into the causal is another matter. But it feels as if I am.

Now to elementals. I think these are important but what can I say about them. In Buddhism we are asked to let go of attachments. So you ask attachment to what? And the answer is attachment to desire. But what if the attachments are elementals? Yesterday I began in the morning trying to try to release elementals. I felt the darkness around my 2nd chakra and also around my 6th chakra. In the afternoon for maybe two or three hours I tried to withdraw into the causal body and be pure. Hopefully by purifying my mind I will make my desire body more subtle towards the purer end, and so have less desire for these elementals to cling onto. This morning I woke from a clear dream that I will go more into later. Then I had dozing and purifying and it felt better - when I finally emerged I felt as if my body was lighter.

I suspect consideration of elementals is the most crazy but I have entered the possibility that the astral body is the dream body, and that I can use dreams to create good. Now I have always had a vivid dream life but have never associated it with the possibility of doing good ie daily life implications. This morning I woke from the dream the best I have felt in a long time at waking, before sleeping I had again focussed on trying to do good.

I cannot possibly describe this as justification of the theosophical bodies but there is something happening because of theosophy. I am going to record it and see where it goes.

This leaves me considering two notions - elementals and astral plane. I believe there was a Marvel character, Dr Stephen Strange, whose abilities traversed the astral plane. It is all kind of glamorous, but it is not daily life. If prior to going to sleep I think of helping others and that happens, well that's the business. But conscious in the astral plane - no thanks. However thinking of the bodies is useful. Understanding the etheric body as a means of understanding how chi works is good, I have just started a search. The astral has too much glamour attached to it, but recognition of a desire body is useful and then not attaching to this desire body. As for the mental bodies, to think of a level of thoughts in which there is a vortex associated with my causal body is again useful. Thoughts and ideas are not mine but belong to a plane in which the vortex attracts similar is useful. Why? Because it teaches us to seek purer thoughts, purer thoughts - more subtle material - less rigid separate egos. And it is worth meditating on withdrawing into the causal body as point or wave - behind the heart chakra. It is this point from which the other bodies emanate and as such returning to the point and then moving outwards gives greater control of the bodies and whether the causal body attaches to them. One aspect of this body is will, and will or determination is important as a means of controlling the attachment to bodies. Somewhere I read that in the beginning will is not strong enough to fight the attachment but with time determination can will out.

One additional point about the real world is the virtual world, the virtual world is not real - it is more of an illusion than what we subscribe to in daily life. So much time and effort are invested in the virtual world - such as blogs etc, and these energies are meant for the real world - daily life and nibbana. Living in virtual computer worlds - games, virtual landscapes etc. - is unnatural, in much the same way as escapist literature deflects from the true purpose. What happens is that intransigent malevolence, such as Big Business or the Bush administration gains control of daily life and in order to escape their control we seek alternatives - living in rural Thailand or computer landscapes. When people know they have a duty in the real world, but in practice far too many who know flee into alternative realities for comfort. Our responsibility lies in the Real World - end of story. Our will and determination are the only tools necessary and available to fight our personal battles - end of story.

My experience of theosophy was just that, theosophy marginalised me from daily life because I believed in something that was supposedly superior to what normal people believed. The following goes into some theosophical detail, perhaps unnecessarily. Firstly the essence of theosophy is Blavatsky (HPB), and she gained her knowledge through amanuensis. I have since come to doubt amanuensis. The first time I doubted amanuensis was Jane Roberts and Seth. I got sucked into her books one holiday in Greece. I remember staying in a Greek tourist village and having a wonderful view of a valley leading down to the sea. I started imagining that I was a reborn Greek soldier - past lives were essential to the Jane Roberts' book I was reading. After being sucked in for several days the name of the spirit, her amanuensis (if not then the source of her revelation), was Seth - for me a name like Satan, and I considered that a trick. At that stage I began to look for the tricks in my spiritual journey. The next one I recall was glamour, hiding behind the validity of the knowledge your spiritual journey gains, you seek fame to promote it. There are many egotists that seek fame and glamour. That is not to say that all who have fame have sought it, desire it or indeed misuse it, but glamour and fame attracts the ego and can divert people from the Path. From all accounts the Bhagwan, even in disguise as Osho, is one such.

In the end I began asking "what did they do to earn this automatic gift?" And this led to "if you haven't paid the piper is what you get valuable?" How did HPB earn her stars? I was expected to put faith in her Secret Doctrine but in truth it was overly complex. It enabled people to pretend they were esoteric. It did however encourage good practices - yoga and meditation, but there is no doubt in my mind that I met people whose academic knowledge of theosophy merited in their own minds respect. I do not dismiss theosophy out of hand but I do dismiss the faith that substitutes for the internalisation of the knowledge. I also have to say that I did see the church's backseat old ladies at theosophy meetings.

But within theosophy there were genuine seekers but in retrospect I cannot tell who they were. They were on the surface good people but their faith in theosophy led them to accept certain things such as freemasonry and the benefits thereof, something which I also feel is unacceptable. But it would be wrong to dismiss theosophy. Yes, it requires faith but genuine enquiry can unearth understanding through theosophy. I am hoping that my enquiry into it now has sufficient genuine integrity to gain something from the study.

What about man's bodies? So far there has been the physical, etheric, astral, and lower mind body. Apart from saying clairvoyant sight is required to accept them, there is definitely a sense in these bodies. Everything I can verify in Annie Besant's "Man and his Bodies" is true. It makes sense that there is a means of converting chi so that the physical body can use it. As for the astral and lower mind body they also make sense in that the subtleties of these bodies can be affected by the denseness of physical desire as compared with the lightness of spiritual aspiration.

At the beach at the end of Chi Gung I have a meditation routine. I sit-standing and feel the chi come from the Earth up through the sole chakras inside the legs to the root chakra and the tan tien. Occasionally this produces shaking. Then from heaven I bring the chi down the body centre line to the tan tien. And then I focus with the hands on the tan tien, Chilel's three sources or whatever it is called. Then in turn I introduce compassion into all the chakras, then love then trust. Then I feel compassion love and trust in the ridgepole. At this point I withdraw from my bodies staring with the desire body and then the mental body. I reach a point behind the heart chakra, and start to focus on purity - and sometimes harmony. Out there in the sun (not too hot) on the quiet beach this is a powerful experience.

And I forgot - which is an important lesson - that at the focus not only do I concentrate on purity, I also concentrate on will. Somewhere in one of the theosophy books I read that to begin with Man's bodies are stronger than his determination but through meditation one can build up determination until at some point this determination overpowers the different disturbances caused wthin the bodies. I like this notion. Thre is no doubt that at different stages problems that have appeared insurmountable suddenly become so much easier. Consider how I gave up the booze, it was not a major power moment - it was of course a major moment. The temperance league did not come in woth bells an banjoes and bright lights appear all around, the acupuncturist said "All the good I am doing is being pissed away. Give up the booze and I can help or don't come again". I decided to give it a go, and when I started it felt good enough and I had sufficient determination I was able to fight the withdrawals of Fridays.

How do non-clairvoyants use the knowledge from the clairvoyants' visions to progress an learn?

This obviously connects with meditation but whilst meditation and yoga are promoted through theosophy I suspect most of the people did nt practice except when they attended theosophy - it was too much of a church.

There is another interesting notion coming out of the Tibetan book that connects well with Man's bodies. I have described the meditation of purity from the centre; the Tibetan book promotes this idea as non-conceptual knowledge form the centre. Consider the centre as a point of a fan, and Man's bodies are sections moving out from the centre. Somewhere on one of the outer sections of the fan there might be a particular impure behaviour that you want to remove. That might be possible by an effort of will but that dies not mean that all impure behaviours have been removed. However if one can radiate purity from the centre and ensure that purity controls attachment then no such behaviours will occur. It reminds me of teaching. Early on in teaching I realised deep down I was a teacher. This was an important realisation becaue it meant had no doubts. Early on when my teaching was too physical it gave me the strength to carry it off because I knew that I was doing it for teaching. It could only work in a school where the parents were angry with the school for not using corporal punishment, and I learnt it was not appropriate for me as I became more experienced. But it was right at the time because it helped.

The most important aspect of this realisation is that the point source fans out and has a wider impact.

There is another impracticality of theosophy that exists throughout science as well, it is the notion that eventually we could have machines to measure - in the case of the clairvoyance chakras. Why? What evidence is there now that science is moving towards measuring for discovery's sake? Science is driven by money and big business, not to disover whether auras can be measured - unless they can find a ay to profit from the aura. In other words thi notion that science can discover something might be true but it could be so far in the future that .... We need to learn to use what we have now, and we have the intuition to understand these things for ourselves. I cannot see a chakra but I know that chakra meditation has helped my healing. That is indisputable but unproveable - enough for me though.

But in life we need to accumulate around us the burden to learn from, this is the first stage of life and in the second we can learn our lessons. It is not by accident some need to hit bottom - maybe hitting bottom is a blessing or else we might live our lives never getting outside (at least in part) our Karmic burdens. Schools are meant to be a burden as a means of creating Karmic ignorance, by the time we have finished schools we have grown to live with ignorance. For those who are successful we leave school with tremendous egos, and for those that fail it takes a long time for them to get back to removing ignorance. This is quite simply the first stage of Karma,and the more I think of it I ask for support from monastics in exosing this aspect of Karma.

The texts talk of Karma as bringing us back to learn but I have never read of how this learning process can occur. When we come back we come back with our soul seed, our Karma. This soul seed builds our bodies but within our bodies where is the learning? We learn by reacting to experience. So Karma gives us our tasks, our burdens, by placing us in the family that will provide the lessons to learn from. If that is not enough we are placed in an education system that can give us sufficient burdens. By the time we have become adults we have enough burdens to last a life time. I note here that HHDL was taken out of the family environment asap, and brought up by tutors. As soon as HHDL is recognised, he is immediately removed from Karmic influence of family and school and educated spiritually.

What happens with learning? We accumulate burdens of knowledge. We receive academic knowledge that fills our minds with contents, usually appropriate to business needs. Many people describe the true learning process of adulthood as unlearning. Both healing and learning are concerned with removing Karmic burdens.

And to remove these burdens we must have control, we have to control our lifestyles. To begin with this means food. In the Buddha's times alms could be expected to be healthy but now society's Karma is much worse and people grow up eating food that brings disease. We cannot be given food, we have to spend time sourcing correct food to prevent disease. At the same time we need to use food and herbs to heal ourselves from any particular disease or disease potential. To do this we need to be knowledgeable of how food impacts on our system. It is not enough to rely on doctors or nutritionists unless we can afford to pay them on a daily basis, and that is likely to be wasteful - not good Karma. We need to take command of our health by recognising our health weaknesses and balancing our health accordingly. A book Like Paul Pitchford is a Godsend, but it is not enough as we need to learn how to survivie locally. To describe how I embrace this approach would be fairly meaningless for most people who do not live in rural Thailand, but to some extent I have in these blogs and in Ginsukapaapdee.

This brings me to teachers and gurus. We live in a receiving culture. We receive information and pretend that it is knowledge. Knowledge needs to be internalised, we need to know what it means for us. This means knowledge is more than reading and accumulating, the process of learning that gives us our school burden, knowledge at the least needs to be reflection but more appropriately non-conceptual through meditation. Do we needall the teachers and gurus that we aggregate around us? There are some traditions that demand a teacher or guru, primarily I think to avoid mistakes. But such gurus take away control of the burden of ignorance. People need to control their own learning process whether with gurus or without, this has to be the first maxim and it is one of the Buddha's - do not accept what I say learn for yourself.

I called this blogentry "recluse". A recluse is not the only choice of Path but when you consider monasteries where is the control of eating or lifestyle? An imposed spiritual routine is a better routing than many lifestyles but when it is not controlled by the individual learning is missed. This control is a danger in monasteries.

I remember the brief incursion into the New Kadampa Tradition in Chorlton. Good people. But I followed a mass, was given a prayer book, and said a liturgy that I had no idea what it meant. The first time I felt a beneficial presence in the room, but gradually it meant less and less. One of the members later turned out to be a work colleague, and we had a discussion. The NKT was about gurus - as is Tibetan, and I was expected to follow blindly what the guru says. This is the Tibetan way. Later I discover that HHDL does not accept NKT for some reason. These people were still following, it is a weakness of the tradition - the guru.

So Tibetan is visualisation practice with faith in a guru - not much there for me? Yet I am attracted. And HHPCR is a powerful man to see.

Tibetan is also into chakras in some way, and I want to find out how.

So I began to look at Tibetan to see what is in it for me. I am reading "The Union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen" by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche. My reactions to reading it are mixed - another issue with Tibetan. Because of gurus they push traditions and lineages and handing down teachings - and empowerments? Again this doesn't feel right to me. Then I got to p100 where a meditation is described, I was able to paraphrase and use it:-

Milk-like nectar will flow down from Compassion (I perceive compassion above my crown chakra)

Enter through the crown of your head (chakra) and fill up your body

All your misdeeds and obscurations in the form of liquid soot

Will stream out through your lower openings as well as the soles of your feet (secondary chakras)

Late amendment:-

There is a later meditation in the chapter where the compassion is given out to all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. This leads me to ingesting(?) the compassion, and once the cleaning has completed then I release the compassion so that there is oneness with compassion - being compassion in the world not in myself.

As I said all of this meditation is a paraphrase but I have been able to use it. At the same time I woke up on Friday recognising that my being is Compassion - Avalokitesvara. I have altered this beach meditation to only compassion - meditation in blog entry, and include the above meditation at the end of the chilel.

So if I am compassion why do I resist the 6 syllables - Om Mane Padme Hung?

Taking death further leads to investigation of bardo, limbo, a time between death and rebirth. On p118 "The Union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen" says:-

"The deities which emerge from one's body and manifest at the time of death are not concrete, but are more like energies or expressions of the enlightened essence. Failing to recognise them as being such "self-display", one might think they are the Lord of Death and his henchmen."

This for me is approaching idolatry and bleeding statues territory. At the same time one can see it as witchcraft - Henry's demon on his left shoulder. Until I know better these images are contrived, it is what the faith asks them to believe. That does not make it any less real. Perceived reality is fashioned by collective minds. Let's start with Henry's demon as everyone can easily dismiss that. For him, an educated man, it was totally real - he believed that a spell had been put on him and that this demon was preventing him from being successful in life. However much western minds might mock this, it was real to Henry and his people. They had been brought up with it, their perceived reality had been so fashioned. So what about Tibetan? What about the deities, the symbolic dancing with "trumpets" and all that? Phenomenal stuff but is it any more than a perceived reality? Contrast (some of) HHDL's books with the required visualisations of their meditation. His books are western-palatable, but is the visualisation? I think not, but maybe - perhaps I should read Robert Thurman to find out. Again I think of the Chorlton people, they were playing "follow my leader". They had found something for themselves so it was not to be rejected, but were they really into all the visualisations, the acceptance of Dorje Shugden and the contentiousness. No, they followed a Guru and gained some understanding and comfort from that. They bought into the perceived reality because it gave them something, but did they accept all that the tradition meant? I doubt that, it would be hard for westerners to do so. I mentioned the bleeding statues and there are other stigmata. These are seen by Christians and not Buddhists, Tibetans see their deities Christians don't. It is belief fashioning reality, but what is underneath is what matters.

Chokyi Nyima talks of recognising deities and lack of recognition could result in their perceved as the Lord of Death. How much is this symbolism? Clearly it is for me because I don't buy into it - believe. Because I don't, I have to interpret the symbolism and that is much harder because I am so ignorant. There is a clue in the above quote for me "more like energies or expressions of the enlightened essence". At the beach yesterday I remembered the presences that happened when I was writing, that could be classified as an "energy or expression of an essence". As such I can begin to consider bardo, I can recognise these writing essences.

OK, writing essences occurred 20 years ago. I have moved on and don't have them as I have balanced them out with meditation. Now that I am being compassion, I need to develop that feeling, what is the essence that is compassion? This essence of compassion I meet in bardo. Now I don't know how much that means to me as bardo is a belief system that I am not sure how much I subscribe to, but on death I must face the karmic accounting. What does that mean? How conscious must I be of this karmic accounting? I don't know. Tibetan says it is a conscious process, Theravada says the accounting occurs as part of karma and we are not conscious of it. It is amazing how much divergence occurs from the words of the same man. One can so see the Theravadan prerequisite that we return to the words of the Buddha but there is so much disagreement about what those original words are. Everywhere you turn there is a new sutta or sutra!! And that is without the commentaries.

Somewhere in the book it says that there is a need for a harmony of emptiness and compassion, what does that mean? But it stuck!!

For me I am only now just starting yet my dream life has always been vivid. I was able in part to control dreams in that I have dreamt stories such as Dr Who one time I think. When I started thinking again of theosophy dreams came into it as the desire body is connected with dreams. I listened to Alan Wallace at Buddhist Geeks 84, and he is promoting dream yoga. He talks of people who have meditated in dreams.

I have started by trying to go to sleep thinking of compassion, maybe I should be more specific and think about "going out into the dream world and being compassionate". But in truth I don't know where this is going. Do I want to control my dreams? Should I be conscious of my dream state? Or are dreams just meant to be that - dreams? And that I have a waking reality that I should try to perfect, and by so doing change my presence in dreams.

I can remember solving maths problems when asleep, having a problem go to sleep and the sleep has worked out the missing step. Saying this in class did not meet with derision, so kids thought it possible. So I have Evans-Wentz to look into Tibetan and Lebarge on lucid dreaming, and between them I can hopefully take a position on dreaming being conscious of the, and controlling my appearance in them. Mmmmm!

Here is their website:-

http://www.onethemovie.org/

I downloaded the movie from Documentary Heaven (www.documentaryheaven.com/) but when I tried to find the links there I couldn't, so here are links:-

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Why watch it? There is no dogma, we're all saying the same thing. Oneness. Be compassion.

(PS The bias in me saw Americanism in the Q&A at the end.)

Where do the waves come from? They are created from the sea by wind, the breath of the sea. So what appears as individual waves is in fact the sea changed by its breath, the wind. As a metaphor what more can we search for than the sea and its breath? What appears as individual waves is the affect of the wind on the sea, what appears as individual life is the affect of breath on emptiness, the Tao.

How does this help? All our miseducation teaches us that we are individuals, but to unlearn this we can perceive ourselves as breath on emptiness. We are unity, One - Nature, as breath blows apparent life into our individual souls. But in truth we are just emptiness, the emptiness of the sea.

Where does the sea end and the wave begin? There is no end or beginning, there is only the breath. So this is anatta, no self, there is only breath and emptiness. Attaching to self is like trying to separate the wave from the sea, it is not possible - it is an illusion. The sea and the wave are never separated. Except in a photo - a photo that could be a static image of the past, or a picture - a static vision - of the future, but never the continuity of now.

As an individual part of me perceived myself as individual manifestation, the whole self, as an individual entity that is part of Nature. But what if instead of seeing the whole individual as separate, why not see the body like the surface of the sea in the wave? Rather than creating a whole self on the surface of emptiness, what about just the shell of the front of the body as the surface of the sea? Rather than excluding emptiness from an entity, live as if you are part of the emptiness, one's front as the surface and the rest emptiness, the energy or breath of which is the chi. The Sea of Humanity. Gaia.

This chilel meditation is different, I need to describe and talk about it. Here are the mechanics. I take in chi from the earth through the legs and the root chakra. Once that is going I take in chi from heaven, and then use the hands to focus on the Tan Tien. And then I forget the chi. I take in compassion through each of the chakras in turn, and then feel a ridgepole of compassion. I sometimes do this three times. Then I withdraw from my desire and mental bodies reaching a point behind the heart chakra as described in this blog. But I had moved the meditation on from this by giving out compassion.

Yesterday this took a further good change. I had been perceiving emptiness in meditation, a unity of emptiness and compassion as said in the book "Mahamudra and Dzogchen". I had withdrawn to the point and was considering compassion and then emptiness, and then said "forget the words". So there was a feeling that was beyond the words. It was bright but there was the sun, brightness is no guide on the beach. That sounds good but I think I'm letting myself get carried away. The meditation at home was disciplined - determined - full-time, but otherwise not good.

This morning is not good and I feel a release of stress, I have been feeling a release of stress for a week or so. I feel this stress is coming from a release caused by the meditation change, and therefore it is a positive release. I woke at 5.00 am and couldn't sleep.

What does the beach meditation mean? I need to balance it with the meditation at home. But it is good I am meditating about emptiness and compassion. When I reach the point and think about the emptiness (or "beyond the words") it as if the body disappears - no front nothing, definitely a good feeling.

But then my dream yoga is messed up. One night a few days ago I went to sleep after meditating about compassion, and this was great. I felt glimpses of dreams in which I had been compassionate, and woke feeling good. But then the last two days I had tried to meditate prior to sleeping to get in a state of compassion but somehow managed to fall asleep without reaching the compassion or my mind moved away from compassion - and the dreams were not so rewarding (not so good). Dream yoga is very positive as the teachers/books suggest but I have work to do. It needs to be a priority in the evening, whilst it does not preclude entertainment it does mean that I have to be in a state of mind where I can meditate on compassion.

When I had the good meditation experience on Monday, the last thing I thought was about doing something meaningful. Then as usually happens when I watched "Wild at Heart" I fell in love with Africa again. Then my mind drifted to teaching in Africa again, I must do it before I am too old. But then I am too old now to do all that head-bashing with the money and careerists. What to do that is meaningful?

"And yes, I agree with you totally on being tired of people dissing wholesale 'western culture', as if it meant only one thing.

And Phra Pandit Bhikku, again, I agree with you. There may be things about the 'west' that's no so great, but most of the world is keen to have the freedoms, stability, environmental standards, political and human rights, etc that they see there."

"Personally I am a big fan of Western culture and of mankind's progress. Too much focus on environmental changes and materialism has overshadowed the massive strides our world has taken. We are the safest, healthiest, most free and cohesive as mankind (personkind ..) has ever been. Most importantly we have leisure time which allows for spiritual pursuits. It is not for vanity that the world's nations seek to 'Westernise'.

Where is the holistic viewpoint? How can Buddhists not stand back and see the world view? I diss western as a whole and see that there are some good points. Why do I diss it as a whole? Because it is the western economic model and its history of exploitation that is creating Dukkha. They are the creators of Dukkha in the world at the moment. If the world is Dukkha then it is the world leaders who are creating it, and at the moment the world leaders are western. And as westerners we cannot say we are not George Bush, we are not Barack Obama, we are not Tony Blair. We cannot say we are not the decisions that are made by big business. Because we are. Collectively as British people we have allowed this to happen. And how do we justify it? By doing good works elsewhere. We leave the problem of western capitalism creating Dukkha and damaging the world causing hell for so many people, and we pretend things are ok because we are comfortable in our meditation etc.

This is the end of the venting. I then tried to write a piece that would bring the issues into question, here it is:-

A certain part of me envies westerners who are comfortable with western society and perceive that our current western society has done more good than harm. As the western powers are the global power I consider they are the current causes of Dukkha, although as far as I understand it Dukkha will continue after they have gone. Over the centuries western empires have accumulated resources that have led to progress but at what cost, to whose detriment we will never know. But in the now isn't it those powers we need to work on? I know when I tried I realised that in a democratic country you need to have 95% of the people fighting together for peace to overcome the 5% who seek war for profit. That was not going to happen. I now hide away in Thailand enjoying meditation sun and sand but sadly the way I do meditation I cannot stop feeling a responsibility for the actions of a government and system I am a part of - now inactively.

I never sent it. In fact I submitted two comments but got no replies and have decided it is not a forum for me. They like the comfort of the intellectual Buddhism which does not question their western values.

I am in Thailand now and have just read an interesting article (Bhante Littlebang article) about how Thai Buddhism is connected in 3 themes - The suttas (what the Buddha said - ignoring the veracity issue), Brahminism and animism. I don't follow Thai Buddhism much even though it is all around me - but it appears to be based in faith, for example a belief in merit-making practices that is historically founded; how much of it is based on understanding? The Theravadan Buddhist monks and teachings I tend to follow mostly come from Wat Pah Nanachat - International Forest Sangha, how much do their teachers believe in Brahminism and animism? According to Bhante's article he is comfortable in perceiving what the Buddha said as being layered on top of the prevailing Brahmin and animist beliefs, these are cultures I do not want to believe in. How much are the realms of the devas relevant to westerners yet this is the culture of the teachers? Have these teachers become detached from their culture? In the article Bhante observes that Christianity is an exclusive religion, I think he is referring to a notion of being completely Christian and others are wrong. When Christians come to Buddhism do they leave all that is Christian behind? For me it is a major concern as to the cultural imposition of these teachers. I have spent all my life trying to unlearn western culture I do not want to replace it with eastern culture, I want to go beyond culture and dogma.

When I examine Tibetan I learn a hierarchy of yanas, Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Hinayana is the lesser vehicle and it is the way Tibetans (in general I think) perceive Theravada, one recent Rinpoche in Bangkok specifically did not refer to it as Hinayana - perhaps for these reasons. What I have read that is Vajrayana points to Tantric Meditation where you invoke the Gods as yidams. Here is an example. In meditation I imagine Avalokitesvara above my head, build up the image of this God above my head and then try to become this God. I have to say this feels a lot like ACIM (ACIM warning) that I rejected. I am not a God with all that image construes. I cannot perform miracles but I do have the ability to be compassionate - Avalokitesvara is the God of Compassion. Is it not enough that we try to invoke compassion - be compassionate?

What is animism? I had a fairly close encounter with animism in Africa. An educated man believed that someone had cast a spell on him, and this spell had left him with an evil spirit on his left shoulder preventing him from any success. In discussion with him I attempted to get him to believe in self-realisation, and he did feel he was making some progress with this. I did have an advantage with this because white men, mo-kweri-kweri there, were immune to this magic. At the same time this magic allowed for muti, and I heard of examples of teenage girls being murdered for body parts as their muti was supposed to be the strongest. The country was Botswana, and the problem was so big that students went on strike because government officials were involved in a cover-up as no effort was being made to catch the perpetrators - the students believed the perpetrators were within the government. Animism has a belief that all things have a spirit. This might well be true in separation, but as a Buddhist I believe in unity. We are all one being working together and that is enough for me. If I allow myself to be part of creating an animist framework that animism will grow, and perhaps with it the magical practices that I have heard of in Thailand. Maybe the sort that was so prevalent in Botswana. This spirit of animism might well be considered in terms of the chi. As Zandtao I believe in keeping the body healthy, and use the universal energy (Chi) for the benefit of Nature. Somewhere in this view of energy I believe I have perceived the animist framework as the energetic framework that involves the chi and chakras. Within this perceived change in framework if I wanted to term the chi that I breathe in through the crown chakra as kwan, a spiritual chi, I might well be moving the kwan away from an animist practice that is prone to magic and immoral practice.

So what is the process that we go through in incarnation - healing and learning? How do I consider this process beyond dogma and culture? In my current development I apply the two-stage model. In the first stage our karmic consciousness is born within me with its debt. Attracted to my parents and culture it builds around itself a being and environment in which that debt can be paid. This BillZ that has been built develops the addictions and false learnings that become unlearned as an adult -hopefully learning enough to improve the next time round. How much of this is dogma I don't know - it doesn't feel like dogma to me or I wouldn't be saying it?

Whether this 2-stage model is dogma or not I do the best I can.

What happens to young people in the West. In general religion is weak and attitudes to family are varied. The one constant is education - for most going to school and for most of the rest taking exams. And what is the primary aspect of the mind that we educate in schools - the intellect. Especially for those successful in the western education system, by its terms, (ie those who have passed innumerable exams), the intellectual ego is very dominant. What is the difference between intellect and insight? Outwardly none. The Buddha had insight into the 4NT, what if I had insight into them? And wrote them down calling it an insight, people would laugh and at best call it plagiarism. The outward form of insight is concept as with intellect, so the intellectual ego takes great steps to block insight - to block memory of who we are, to block us from returning home.

Now this intellectual ego is very powerful in the West, it is a significant aspect of our culture. When we talk of the spiritual Path many of us have had to battle with this intellectual Path; in my case I hit bottom. On p128 HHSR describes the difficulty of finding the Path in the West and contrasts it with Tibet where "choosing a particular path or teacher was far safer". Culturally this is so important. With the dominant hegemony of the West few consider seeking understanding elsewhere. Whilst Gap year people seek adventure and perhaps some understanding it is mostly to add to their cultural experience gained back home. It is not a process of unlearning that which distances them from the Path - such as the intellectual ego. And for those that do venture that far, they enter a teaching environment which talks of Gods, demons, ghosts and animism. It involves a teaching style that demands blind obedience and contains an unwillingness to accept questioning. Whilst it is necessary to accept discipline, whilst meditation is needed to overcome attachment to ego, and whilst pointless questioning is only a distraction, such teaching styles can alienate some serious western seekers. As a result these return to the West to the charlatans who offer a quick fix and exhorbitant prices such as Big Mind often referred to by Brad Warner (this is a typical blog entry). Devotional styles of learning, whilst suiting some individuals, do not fit in with the miseducated minds of western culture.

Unfortunately this is a matter of survival of the spiritual Path. There are far more westerners floundering around with this or that fad connected with spirituality than there are on the Path itself. Such floundering is understandable when you consider the intellectual minds their search is predicated on. As a consequence western spirituality is not making sufficient inroads. The intellectual education which has developed a powerful ability to dismiss that which does not benefit capitalism disparages the trendiness and ethereal nature of much that goes for misguided western spirituality leading to an "entire society j. seeming to negate every idea of sacredness or eternal meaning"[HHSR p128]. HHSR quite rightly tells us that in Tibet there is a tradition of lineages which he points to as a wisdom tradition and a means of safety. But whilst the people of Tibet might accept this tradition and be willing to scramble across Tibet prostrate on all fours to visit the Potala Palace, western miseducated minds in general do not accept such devotion. Perhaps there is a balance between this devotion and the miseducated minds, I know far too little to assess what that balance is, nor do I have the wisdom to determine the appropriate pedagogy. But what is clear now is that globally the world is distancing itself from the spiritual Path and the wise are not able to influence the power of the West. Assessing the nature of the powerful miseducated western mind and determining the pedagogy that copes with such minds is a matter of global survival. When you combine this with the increasing accumulation of power by the few in the West, the danger is so apparent.

It might well be that in this day and age more westerners are seeking some answers to the problems their populations allow their democratic governments to perpetrate, but the spiritual influence is not affecting what needs to be affected. In the 60s there was a movement of people in the West who sought a means to move spiritually to love and peace, but now we are in a far worse situation. Whilst there may be many people on the internet seeking solutions, in the real world the power continues to accumulate with the few whose spiritual dearth is frightening. Those that know perhaps need to re-evaluate how they are teaching, how their teachings are being spread in the West.

1) The Eastern route is one way, western people grow up attracted to the east. Maybe that attraction is fostered by the presence of monasteries that have been spawned from the east, or maybe they have met people who have spent time out east learning. Or maybe just the reading is enough.

2) Another route is the traditional western religions but the attraction of these appears to be getting less and less - it is difficult for me to judge having lived outside the UK for 20 years now.

3) And then for want of a better way to describe it there is the spiritual route, and this is a mess. But in my view, unfortunately this is where most people who are genuinely trying to learn are floundering. This spiritual route might be best summed up with the mish-mash that is the Mind Body and Spirit Festivals. It attracts the genuine but there are also the charlatans and those using the Path to make money - not to earn a living but to make money. I cannot recall a significant Buddhist input into this the last time I went but in truth I wasn't looking.

For me there is no problem with people who remain attached to the traditions (as in 1 and 2 - see below) but this is not the majority of people with spiritual links; the majority belong to the mish-mash. Much like my own development this mish-mash is faddish. This bit of the Path attracts one day, the mind tires of it and looks for a buzz somewhere else. Or maybe some spark opens people to the Path, and then they spend the rest of their lives fanning the flames stuck on that spark. It is this eclectic lack of depth that decided me to focus on one tradition when getting involved in Buddhism, the focus gave me depth and once in deeper I was hopefully able to develop vision. But focussing on one fad for your life or flitting from one fad to another for your life misses out so much of the spiritual journey. There is no strength and no depth. This is why the traditions have so much to offer because they provide the depth. You have a question you move deeper, another question you move deeper, these questions have always been asked before because of the tradition.

But in the fads the questions have not been asked. If the leader of the fad takes it further s/he answers her/his own questions. Whilst such guidance can be fruitful it is full of the risks of the ego, the ego taking over, the ego becoming attracted to glamour. In this way the spiritual route is full of charismatic figures making wild claims, and, whilst there are pockets of good sense in eastern and western monasteries, this is not where western people are mainly attracted, their intellectual minds are initially attracted to the fads.

So the question then is, is this fad a stage to go through or is it a weakness of the Western Path that needs addressing? Is it sufficient to say that the established traditions exist and westerners will find them? I contend not but in truth I don't have an answer, and as I said in my last blog I do believe it is a matter of survival for there is so much of Nature's western spiritual energy being wasted.

For people taking the first two routes there are few dangers (see below). Such paths are not easy but they are not fraught with danger whilst the spiritual route has so many dangers. First and foremost of these dangers is the lack of morality. Many of these fads had origins in the Beat generation and the hippy culture, if not origins these people gave them a focus. Such focus was positive but significant in the hippies was a rejection of the repressive aspects of western upbringing. And whilst this rejection was in many ways positive, its results have been negative. The unfettered greed of the dominant capitalist ethos has used the rejection of these traditional values to create even greater havoc. But the love generation were moving in the right direction but they lacked two qualities, morality and a tradition to guide it. And this would be a fair description of the Mind, Body and Spirit movement now, in general it lacks morals and has no tradition to guide it.

Significant within this spiritual route is creativity. Now creativity is spiritual expression but it is not expression that is governed by tradition. More often than not this creativity gets perverted by money. The creative spiritual energy is often fostered within the West. Diaries are common-place, blogs sprout everywhere, but where does this creative energy go? With blogs it is mostly wasted, people talking to people in the blogosphere having limited application in daily life. And then there is the creativity that becomes media such as books or films. Who controls them? Is it the creator? No, it is the publishers and distributors. What Nature wants as creative gets buried whilst the immoral publishers force immorality on the creative who need to earn a living. Yet another aspect of the repression.

And what about the repression itself? What happens then? People hit bottom. They turn to drugs including alcohol, as the spirit sees there is no way to go. These people are forced deeper and deeper into an abyss created by the drugs, and sadly some never come out. For others they come out and there is the light of the Path. But then where do they go? Once on the Path there is little choice but to follow, but where is the tradition to follow? Nowhere in the West? So these people on the Path follow the fads. They search the bookstores, attend Mind Body and Spirit etc, jump onto one fad or another gaining a glimpse of the light, a glimpse of the journey home.

Is it enough for the Wisdom in the East to offer the images of Shangri-La? Whilst many such as Ajaan Chah, HHDL and HHSR have chosen to go West to bring their traditions, is that the required approach? Certainly there are a few who have gained from joining these traditions, but the transmission of these traditions remains within an Eastern perspective. Is there not a way in which the traditions can embrace the Western creativity? Is it enough to say this way has worked historically, follow it or flounder? That feels like such a waste. I am not asking for pandering to western ill-discipline but isn't there a way of genuinely tapping into the creativity and questioning of the western mind? After all whilst this creativity and questioning abides in the West it belongs to the world to global Nature, and Nature is suffering because its resources are being channelled westwards and are being repressed. And maybe Nature is saying there needs to be more questioning - in the east as well?

But there is no doubt that I have been complacent in my life, not always doing enough to hold onto the Path. Often the Path would force me back onto it. And at other times the complacency would say that I am on the Path, I am doing right, and then doubt would creep in causing me to change, and hold to the Path more. This was especially so when I started daily meditation. Here doubt was Nature's tool for keeping me on the Path. HHSR calls this "Noble Doubt" on p124.

An aspect of this doubt is the questioning I have referred to in these blogs 23 and 24? Doubt shows and asks questions about whether I was genuinely on the Path and was I doing the best I could? And now the best I could means meditation. Doubt tells me I am never doing the best I can, complacency says I am doing the best. Between the two is the truth of where I am at. I could always do more and I could do far less. I could always do more meditation, I could always help more people, I could kill fewer mosquitoes, but there is far less I could do, far less than I have done. The balance is for me to decide, my doubt.

This questioning doubt is important and must be part of the Path but it must not be destructive. There is constructive questioning that holds to the Path, a Path that in a permanent sense does not change but in daily life is always changing. Compare this with the destructive questioning that is academia. Knowledge, what is knowledge? Mind, what is mind? Truth, what is truth? And so on. There is a continual academic process of postulate and destruction. There is no conviction, there is no recognition of the Path, just a continual process of destructive questioning. Why is there never a recognition of the Path as Truth? The intellectual ego. The ego is shallow and non-existent, collective recognition of the Path would expose the ego for what it is. So the ego builds its strength by destructive questioning. Enshrined as a place of knowledge, academia ensures that the intellectual ego is never threatened. When people postulate the Path as Truth, academics question. They demand objective proof. They ignore the empirical truth of the repeated meditation journeys but demand truth by rationale; they ignore this mainly because those in power do not follow a Path. But reason cannot find that Truth, it can only be found by intuition or insight. Yet all those with insight postulate the same Path but this is not accepted as proof. Why? Because those with power do not have the insight. So what do those with academic power do? They question destructively. They destroy the Knowledge that is the Path, and repeatedly propose new "knowledge", their theories, which then get attested to by other academics for the simple reason that they follow the people who have the power, senior academics, have control, control of the money and power. As a consequence the only thing that academia does is ensure that the Truth is never known by all.

And ultimately why does this happen? Collective Truth as Knowledge of the Path is a threat to the global money interests. There are two interests who fight the global hegemony of money, the compassionate and the trade unionists. The trade unionists are better than the capitalists because they are fighting to say that all people should have equal share of the cake. Whilst they are better they are still being greedy. This shows with Trade Unionists who demand that the workers in their country should have their share of the cake but supporting protectionism that prevents all the people of the world from having their share.

Do I need a master to be the best I can? Are teachers and masters the same? When HHSR talks of devotion to a Master he is talking of a genuine form of mimicking that Master through devotion. I don't do that. Would I do that if I met a Master? To be quite honest, I am not sure I would. And that to me sounds incredibly arrogant. So I want to investigate it. Is HHSR one of my teachers? In other words are books teachers? I am not saying all that HHSR is is in his books, I am absolutely certain that he is far more than his books, but I can learn from his books. And as with all teaching the teacher does not always know what the student is going to learn, for the simple reason that when the teacher uses words such as Path its meaning is so different for all that use it. I am equally certain that I cannot know what HHSR means by the word Path, partly because he is far wiser than I and partly because he is from a different tradition and at present I do not attempt to follow his tradition.

I classify teachers in two ways - Inner and Outer. The Outer teachings are through meeting with wise people, talks and books. I have met wise people personally but with all due respect those personal meetings could not be described as meeting with Masters. I have attended talks given by people such as Thay or Krishnamurti, people who some might term Masters. These people are impressive, and when I consider their wisdom I feel small and that I have much to learn from them. But not as a disciple. Whilst I have studied Thay's books I do not wish to live in a Plum Village. Whilst I have much to learn I am learning in my haven, Baan BillZ, with my Inner teacher. Does that mean I am complacent? Far from it, I could spend more time learning, but equally I could spend far less.

I remember my last reaction to a Thay talk, I was dissatisfied. In part I was dissatisfied because I could not understand his reaction to the sound system failure. But I also reacted internally. I had looked forward to his talk yet when I attended it was a let-down. Why? Fundamentally I realised that what needed to be done was internal. I needed to engage with teachings internally, I needed to improve my meditation, it was my journey that I needed to work on. This was not going to happen at talks when there is so much more I could do. The talk taught me that I was not doing the best I could. That realisation was a valid enough reason for attending the talk but surely I could have told myself that, it was not the external teaching of the speaker .

So many wise people say you need to work under a Master, I cannot dispute them - they are so wise. I don't want to dispute them, if you can find a Master to work with then great. My concern is for those who have not found Masters. I believe the term I have heard used is Spiritual Tourists, maybe their search for a Master is genuine, but the people I am concerned about are running from one Guru, ashram or teacher to another. Some are waiting for perfection, if everything is just right then they will become a disciple. Can everything be just right? I met a guy who believed Tai Chi was everything - he had never done it but he was convinced it was the answer and was waiting until he found the right teacher; I don't know if he ever did and whether it was his answer. His criticism of what I was doing was that I wasn't 100% Tai Chi, and I shouldn't be concerned about this and that. It was so theoretical, he was not doing the nest he could at the time - waiting. Another guy I knew in Africa had been in a commune in his 20s. He claimed he had worked for enlightenment but never got it - so he had given up. At the time I knew him (in his 50s) he was a drunk. Maybe there is this perfection around but surely what must be done is the best you can at the moment, not what is available at the end of the rainbow. How many people are out there looking for the perfection at the end of the rainbow?

So much can be done with your internal teacher, that is what I am trying to say. I am not arguing against Masters I am simply saying work with your internal teacher. Our western education trains us into seeking solutions outside, this is the intellect. The intellect scrambles around on the surface of the mind pasting on this or that theory evaluating it rationally. But this intellectual mind does not internalise, the ego does not allow it. In a sense this is what happens with spiritual tourism. People wander from teacher to teacher, and the words become theories on the surface of the mind. I met a guy who had travelled and visited many teachers. He appeared to me so confused. There were aphorisms and supposed deep-thinking for every occasion but what there wasn't was the internal peace that comes from integrating internally; he was still seeking a teacher.

Does the requirement of becoming devoted to a teacher fully recognise the way this can be misconstrued by the intellectual mind? A major need is to internalise, of course teachers would point that out. But how much can be gained by internalising for oneself? Taking that journey for oneself is so refreshing rather than receiving it as a teaching and then perhaps lulling oneself into thinking one has internalised. It is so easy to receive a teaching and then apply it with all good intention because at the time it was required. Such a receiving can also come with a great feeling of learning produced by the learning environment, and yet in colder isolation later one can realise that this was not the bells and banjos felt during the buzz of the teaching. Of course the teacher can point that out if they are aware of it. But if the journey is made yourself you can internalise, and then the process is more genuine.

This does have dangers however, dangers that a teacher can help avoid. But there are two things that can help you on your own - meditation and moral integrity. Meditate daily morning and evening. And in meditation develop a deep moral integrity, question your morality. By this I do not mean recant a moral platform, do not enunciate moral righteousness, but develop a deep moral integrity. Without this the Path is dangerous. How many spiritual tourists are also sexual tourists seeking spiritual answers whilst sleeping around? In our western culture traditional sexual values have been lost, the sexual values of monogamy and family. It is so easy to get sucked into a lifestyle of dabbling with spirituality whilst dabbling sexually. Is this the answer? Discuss spiritually and then into the sack. If you come from a society where promiscuity is quite prevalent then it is natural to consider that sexual liaisons can go hand-in-hand with spiritual discovery. But is that in fact true?

This is not something to be prescriptive about, but the sexual practices of some of the spiritual is something for concern. I know for me that relationships have always been a distraction on the Path, and in the end I have come to realise that I was not being genuine in seeking such relationships. At the core how many women are seeking relationships with a view to starting a family? I believe this is natural for many, but in my relationships with such women whilst I might have verbally made a contract that I was not seeking family was that the way the woman saw it? On the spiritual path maybe women perceive this notion of family differently, how can I possibly say? Maybe there is a spiritual union on the Path? I don't know but I can only describe what has worked for me. Since I have stopped seeking a relationship I have been less distracted from the Path, of course age and the lessening of the sexual desire has influenced that process. I cannot be descriptive but which is more important? The Path or the relationship? Can you have both? Only you and your partner can answer that. The Path is permanent, the relationship is temporary.

So I conclude with Masters. If you have been fortunate enough to find one, then I hope your journey is fulfilling. If not try working with meditation and moral integrity, internalising with our inner teacher can be fruitful.

"All that I have realised I have realised through my devotion to my masters. Increasingly, as I go on teaching, I become aware, humbly and with real awe, of how their blessings are beginning to work through me. I am nothing without their blessings, and if there is anything I feel I can do, it is acting as bridge between you and them. Again and again I notice that when I speak of my masters in my teaching, my devotion to them inspires a vision of devotion in those listening, and in those marvellous moments I feel my masters are present, blessing and opening the hearts of my students to the truth."

Such devotion can open heart to the truth, devotion can open the heart to the truth. For HHSR the devotion that opened his heart was to his masters so the question to be asked is "If you have not contact with masters or are not seeking a master what is the devotion that can open the heart to truth?"

Can you not have devotion to the Path?

Devotion (Wordweb):-

1) Feelings of ardent love.

2) Commitment to some purpose.

3) Religious zeal.

Paraphrasing:-

1) Feelings of ardent love for the Path.

2) 100% commitment to the Path.

3) Religious zeal for the Path.

What does this mean? The Path is 100% the lifestyle, so the question then concerns complacency:-

Is the Path 100% my lifestyle?

And of course the answer is an unequivocal no, so a change is in the offing. It reminds me of my decision at Sihanoukville concerning taking orders. In my travels those 3 months, I had developed a lifestyle that satisfied me that my Path was not taking orders, and using the word I can say it is because I can be more devoted at Baan BillZ. But have I been more devoted? And the answer is yes and no. Yes, because my Path and orders are different. No because I have not committed myself enough to the Path - not enough devotion.

I am blasi and apathetic about removing entertainment from my lifestyle. I freely express "I watch too much TV" but the problem is that I let that TV watching extend into my religious life by altering the shape of my day because I stay up late. I have changed the shape of my day today - sadly I have done that before, but the shape of my day is an act of devotion so hopefully this change will be more determined.

The beach has made me complacent because my Path at the beach mostly makes me proud - there is devotion there. This pride has led to complacency and I have become slack at home, home almost exclusively being domestic, teaching, sleep and entertainment with my meditation suffering because I meditate at the beach. I must make my home more a place of devotion, I must make more time for devotion at home. I always held the mornings sacrosanct for meditation and writing, I need to reclaim the mornings for the Path by curtailing the entertainment. If entertainment interferes with the Path again, then I will have to consider the monastic approach - no TV; I must keep control for the Path, I want the Path to work through me.

So what about the suttas/sutras? I have never read them, I read people's interpretations of them anyway. Isn't my religion then revisionist? I believe the Buddha was an enlightened man, I believe in the truth of my Path and that is mostly where the Dhamma is. Dhamma is truth but all of it? Every book? Every word a Phra utters, every word Bhante utters? I have always listened and judged, I have never taken every word. So what does that mean in terms of the Dhamma/Dharma? It is the truth of my Path.

And the Sangha. It is essential that the Tradition is preserved. How is it preserved? By people adhering to the truth, their Paths. But what happens in practice? People seek their truth through the institutions, and often defer to the institutions. This has good and bad in it. Within the annals of the institutions there is the truth, on the surface perhaps not - people must judge, their Paths must judge. I support the institutions that are preserving their traditions, and still have much to learn from them. But I am not the institution. Being a recluse, being a monk, what is the difference? A monk follows his Path in the institution, a recluse just follows their Path.

So what about taking orders in Thailand? I have never discussed with Bhante what freedoms he has, but he is established and I suspect he has a watched brief as the monk for the Farangs. Quite legitimate. Kind of Thai really, have something for the Farangs so long as it is not them. What would happen with a new recruit? Would they be given such license? No, they would have to prove themselves by first of all immersing themselves in the institution. And what is the institution? Here Bhante's description seems appropriate - Theravada on top of a touch of Brahminism and animism. What does this mean in practice for novices? They are involved in rituals associated with Brahminism and animism as well as learning all that is Theravada. Is that my Path? No. Anything wrong with that, if that's what your Path chooses - no problem.

There is another aspect of the institution of Thai Buddhism that absolutely frightens me. I was talking with my Thai teacher, and discussing food. Now food has always been an issue for me. One of the three prongs of Zandtao is a healthy body, and being a monk your body is always going to suffer from the quality of food that is the alms. One might argue that good meditation can overcome such deficiencies, that might well be true, but why take the risk? Answer - money. If you don't have income then you accept the institutional rules. And money is the point that the Thai teacher raised. There are powerful interests in Thailand connected to the Buddhism, I don't know how powerful. The monks are sponsored by the Thai people, rich and poor, maybe the rich have too much power. When I suggested that the monks should say that their food should be cheewajit she said there would be an outcry. For me that sounds like there is an outcry against the truth.

An institution is a mixture of good and bad or more kindly in this case good and less good. An institution has a lot to offer people - protection, a source of tradition, and much more. But within that there is control, a restriction of freedom. In a sense an institution has a life of its own, it is not simply the sum of its parts. I for one support that life. I have always been too critical of the behaviour of monks. I did not like seeing the monks on the Red platforms, I believe the institution became tainted as a consequence. But that is my perspective only, perhaps wanting too much of an ideal. And of course it was not my institution, I am an outsider. But the institution does have a life of its own, does have an image, does have an ethos, a set of rules. And these must be protected. I support protecting it but do not want the restrictions that come with that.

I will always be on the periphery of Buddhism - as I am now. I will call myself a Buddhist but in truth my Path in Nature is not strictly Buddhist. But when you ask individuals what their Path in Buddhism is all answers will be different, and that is how it should be. I am a recluse, I don't want a church. A wat?

Two days later I shaved my head. I had thought about it for a while because of my hair issue - maybe didn't because of connections with monkhood.

What is your meditation?

How do you develop moral integrity?

How is your daily practice devotion?

That is simply the Nature of the Path and the need for language to communicate. I hope to make Zandtao the bare bones without it being dangerous because of over-simplification, but then I do write too much. How can the treatise be bare bones?

He has a 4-step meditation as his Guru Yoga.

1) Invocation

2) Maturing and deepening the blessing

3) Empowerment

4) Resting in the Rigpa

1) Visualisation of the master, invoking in the sky in front of you the master as the embodiment of truth. Fill your heart with the presence and "inspire me to purify all my karma and negative emotions".

2) Mantra - using the mantra offer your heart in one-pointed devotion. He see hundreds of little Padmasambhavas circulating in the form of sound inside him.

3) Rays of light emanate from the master in 3 phases:-

a) White emanating from the forehead of the master and entering your forehead chakra. Mind.

b) Red emanating from the throat and entering your throat chakra. Speech.

c) Blue emanating from the heart and entering your heart chakra. Body.

4) Dissolve the master in light and become one with you in the nature of your mind, the original ground, Rigpa.

Similarities here to what I do, and I see a way of taking things forward but have not worked out how yet.

Since writing this I have tried my own version with intermittent success:-

1) Feeling compassion - compassion through the head and crown chakra linking owth the source behind the heart. Project compassion outwards and try to mix with compassion that is there already. Sometimes get the feeling of compassion.sometimes don't.

2) Have begun saying "Om mane padme hum" to myself thinking of compassion. Despite reservations does feel good.

3) Breathe in compassion through these three chakras and relate it to having compassionate mind, speech and body.

4) Try to be one with compassion and sunyata.

The real issue of addiction to samsara is this for me, if I am not 100% on the Path then I must be addicted to samsara because why would I choose samsara. Why would I choose all this pointless temporary stuff of samsara?

When I was asking myself what I really wanted, a number of the usual answers came up before I decided I wanted to be addicted to compassion. I want to teach - Zandtao or whatever label. I then moved into a flight of fantasy about how and where I could teach Zandtao, but in the end this was not what I really wanted because it was temporary; if teaching happens it happens but it is not what I really want. What I really want is to be compassion not addicted to samsara, and, temporarily I hope, I will become addicted to compassion whenever samsara's addictions beckon me.

I compared this addiction with the alcohol addiction, I didn't really want to stop drinking. I wanted to be healthier - life as healing. To be healthier I had to stop drinking, I wanted not to be addicted to the drink because I wanted to feel better. Although I can't remember being conscious of this at the time I wanted to follow my spiritual journey, my Path, and alcohol was getting in the way. The same was true of relationships with women, I wanted to follow my spiritual journey but women got in the way. And it is true now of samsara, I wanted to follow my spiritual journey but samsara got in the way. The Path, to be compassion.

14/03/11 Realised that addiction to compassion is an avoidance - just didn't work. The issue is "being compassion", that has to be enough. When I gave up the booze I had a negative attitude that it was a good time to try - worried about my health. It was the right time, and with self-disicpline especially on Fridays it was enough. As I started to give it up I began to feel better and the thought of waking up with those hangovers kept me going. Now I want to wake up with compassion and addicted to samsara means that I don't. I want to dream compassion but addicted to samsara means I don't. That has to be enough with more focus on will, the will to being sunyata.

It is now warming up. Trat rainy season has started building up to the official rainy season in July. March is hot and April is unbearably hot. I had begun to wake up dehydrated with occasional headaches, and thought about my kidneys. I watched my pissing and saw that it was clear and too frequent, but had not noticed it coinciding with amount of nam pak I was drinking.

What am I calling nam pak? Well at this stall I can usually buy leafy green veg for 10 Baht. I cut off the leaves and put them in a blender with a bit of honey and lemon and ginger tea. I then blend and strain. This gives me just under a litre, but I have on occasions made two batches in a day. Yesterday I drank more than a litre, was peeing regularly, and had a difficult night because I was dehydrated.

Over this period of dehydration I have tried water - peed it. Then salt - helped, but it has never got to the problem - that the nam pak is making me pee too much. The problem is only balance, how can nam pak not be good for you? So I will reduce the amount of nam pak, maybe a glass with a meal to supplement the green.

Nam pak cannot be bad for you so I need to look at what is inside me that is causing this peeing issue, and the answer is candida. I thought I had resolved the candida but it is still there. The water-associated minor headaches and the excessive peeing are candida, the headaches are what is called candida die off and the peeing is as a result of candida still existing. I looked at my diet. Not much there to encourage the candida or dampness except for the sugars in fruit. I will be more disciplined with the probiotics as I still have candida, and I will take ACV daily - perhaps twice daily - no perhaps TWICE DAILY. If that doesn't help, then I will reduce the fruit, meanwhile there is something in papaya that helps so I must eat that.

In the end I want to be able to drink more than a litre if I choose - then no candida.

Now I accept that meditation is at a higher level, and that the subtler level of meditation can control the body. I remember the example Tevijjo Yogi gave me of the siddhis where some Yogis are capable of controlling the substance of their bodies to walk through walls. Most monks do not follow this glamorous approach to meditation, and even if they did at what level does this power of meditation come in. Meditation can however keep one healthy to a certain extent but if the toxins from almsround food imbalances the body starting a process that leads to disease can meditation actually stop that? I don't now but I give that a maybe. I do however suggest that it has more chance of being successful if monks are conscious of the weaknesses in their body due to the lack of healthy feeding. It might go along the lines that during meditation the monk focuses on improving the health of his body. Much as one might meditate on compassion, one could meditate on health.

So the question then becomes do monks ask? Because the institution is stuck in the time warp that accepts unhealthy alms offerings, monks are not taught that the food they eat is toxic and damages their health. The institution waits for disease and then treats it in the normal social way - get a disease and hit the pills or a knife. If the meditation approach can work the monks have to be aware of the problem ie they have to go against the institution by admitting institutional weakness and then compensating. Or the institution has to make them aware, does that happen?

For all people meditating on health is beneficial. One style might be the 4-stage Guru yoga approach where health is somehow visualised, I am not sure what mantra promotes health. Another one could be a chakra approach where good health is breathed in through each chakra whilst bad health or toxins are breathed out. Such meditations would be beneficial for monks and others.

What was great about the movie was hearing peoples' experiences on the Path, and Western people at that. In their descriptions there were many things that I had experienced and it was good to hear affirmations. They are different to what you hear in the East, see recent East-West deliberations on this blog (starting here but not consecutively). Such affirmations are important when you are brought up in the melee that is western society. It was also good to see the English countryside being associated with the Path, as in my life there were many reinforcing moments when I fled to the coast paths and hills to escape the stress of working life after awakening onto the Path.

The 5 Gateways are:-

Awakening

Realignment

Transfiguration

Enlightenment

Resurrection

These are parts of an Ascension process as described by Chris Bourne.

This is a western Path and it is good to hear it, people who suffer western society and awaken from within need to hear about this in a western way. I don't know whether the narrator of the film, Chris Bourne, is the person who has come up with these 5 Gateways, or whether these are steps described in a wider "Ascension" movement, but I have concerns here. This is the usual thing about the West, where is the Tradition? Is what this guy doing definitely correct as attested by so many people historically who have followed the Path and become enlightened? It is the contrasting danger for those who do not choose the eastern route. The East demands the seeker to fit into a way that is inappropriate for many westerners but at least if westerners fit into this way it is safe; the East has the Vinaya and many other practices which protect the practitioner and the teachers. Even though the ego is still present in the East there is much that is done to prevent the ego from arising.

What tradition is quelling Chris Bourne's ego if he has one? Such a potential danger!!

There are several good signs to this 5 Gateways approach as described at their website. Firstly their approach follows the Zandtao test, body, energy and mind. And as an institution it is non-profit. The movie can be downloaded at their website for free, and it can also be downloaded here. But if you do download from here, please checkout their website there is much more free stuff there.

But it does fail the most important test - perhaps. Sila - moral integrity. Having been recently fooled by people I felt sympathy for, feeling they were in some way on the Path, this test is the most important. Does Openhand have moral integrity? Now throughout the film there was no requirement of appropriate moral conduct, and in a western environment for me this has to be number one - stressing moral integrity. Growing up in an environment in the West where immorality is the common practise, training to move people towards the Path has to begin with sila. This movie did not. There is a kind of western understanding that if you are on the Path appropriate moral action follows. In my view this is not true, although mostly it is. The temptations in the West need to be fought hard, and sila is essential. Of course sila does not have balls, it is not attractive. Many westerners will have come from a promiscuous background, they have certainly come from a society where profit-making trumps morality in most cases. Such people will not be attracted to a course that requires deep morality. Yet that is not an excuse for a course that describes itself as being on the Path to avoid morality, on the contrary it is a requirement that the Path begins with deep morality - moral integrity. For this reason I cannot recommend Openhand,hwthere they are moral or not they do not stress it from the beginning. Although apart from this it did look a good place to start if you had just begun a process of awakening and didn't know what to do.

And in the West places to start are needed.

So Billthis became a teacher but the teaching world is so far from the Natural Path of teaching (see Matriellez's(my) book), there was always a dichotomy he had to face - Being a Teacher and the unnatural path that is society's teaching. So the drink followed. And this was because he had not fortified his Path with sila. Whilst basically being a moral person his sila was not strong enough. If he had followed the 5 precepts, drink would not have occurred nor would the sexual vagaries. Maybe if he was not drunk he would have married although the Path had given him strong independence - a need to be alone.

So his realignment was not complete because it lacked sila, he did not completely follow all that is a Natural Path. Examples of this were the drink and the unhealthy food. Nature he clung to when on holidays and walking but when younger this Natural Realignment strengthened his teaching purpose but never brought him to morality. One reason was because western people on the Path never promoted moral integrity, I do not blame them I should have known better. Billthis rejected the one person who spoke to him of being moral, and that was because there were many people in society who spoke of morality but were not truly moral ie many hypocrites - and other reasons not for blogging. Morality was used by Christians on Sunday, yet during the week their work practices were immoral - supporting the system, and it was the system Billthis knew was so far from Nature - so far from the Path.

Without a deep sila Billthis did not progress on the Path as he might. The drink took over although he never thought so - others would say he drank heavily but was not an alcoholic. The drink allowed him to be immoral because he could justify his actions as being caused by the drink. His sober life was moral, his realignment sober was strong. And he progressed along the Path at sober times, such as holidays where he would read and write. But his lack of sila because of the immorality through drinking slowed his progress.

When he stopped drinking, hit bottom December 74 took the pledge around April 88, his life as a teacher had formed. Realignment had taken place in that he understood being on the Path but there was not the desire for Ascension - for Enlightenment. His Path of teaching was necessary because of a commitment to help. Soon after the end of the drink he started to travel, and although through his teaching he continued to help he found his Path took him further and further from the appalling compromises that teaching forced him to make. And now he finds himself more completely on the Path where the money from teaching is enabling him to study and be true to himself. My blog is significant in describing my Path since retirement, and the first series of blog entries was sila although not as I see it now.

I then began looking up Ascension on the net and one person wrote:-

Now theosophy is well established in the West, and has a general air of respectability. In fact a friend of my mother's ran one such group near Manchester, and while she was a nice lady I knew her well enough to know that she was not completely committed to the Path. At theosophy meetings there were many books, there were people who considered themselves erudite - I do not wish to comment on that as it is long ago, and people basically discussed the books and theosophical teachings. There were clearly people who had some insight (again a long time ago so I cannot rely on my recollection of judgement), but they fundamentally took theosophy on faith, an observation I made recently when returning to theosophy a little. One tenet of Buddhism I hold dear is that throughout the Lord Buddha asks not that you follow him because he said it but that you understand the teachings for yourself. The teachings of theosophy do not ask that, far from it theosophy demands an acceptance by faith especially when it discusses the occult - clairvoyance etc.

I recently became re-involved with theosophy when considering chakras, and much that Leadbeater said was to take what he said on faith. For me this was a problem, I'd even go so far as to say a turn-off. But chakras need not be approached in this way. It is easy to confirm the reality of chakras personally. Try Tai Chi or Chi Gung. If after a while with those disciplines you don't feel increased energy, give up on them - but I would be surprised. But you must experience the energy, and then trust the chakras for yourself. What I could not experience was all his wonderful-looking diagrams and their derivations, maybe they are true but I left them alone I could not experience them.

There are spin-offs from theosophy, I know little of these, but the cursory glances I have given them do not point away from the faith in Ascended Masters.

I looked at ACIM (see warning), I believe that is connected to Ascended Masters. Similarly there is a book "The Disappearing of the Universe" in which Gary Renard discusses with a Master, as does Neale Donald Walsch discuss with God. What I have studied from these books tells me there is a lot to learn but what I can't tell is whether it is all true as I am not knowledgeable enough. So I back away, and only learn what I can. And as with ACIM when I thought it was going wrong for me I stopped. I do not advise anyone to accept verbatim all that is in ACIM unless you can experience for yourself, as with these other books. How do you know they are true teachings?

I remember reading Castaneda when young. I took Journey to Ixtlan to the Ardennes and France with me and learnt a great deal from it. I began to trust in myself, intentionally getting lost in the Ardennes and finding myself - no risk I found out later. I verified the teachings in the book, and at the time believed a great deal in Castaneda. Recently I began studying Castaneda again (see Fire from Within bookblog). I had heard rumours about him but I had had a good experience. I started rereading one of his books and found that to understand it I had to change a frame of reference - I had to have faith in what he said. Then someone said to me that he had been making things up - researching made me lose confidence, and it was sufficient for me to stop altering my frame of reference, and I gave a Castaneda warning. What I learnt from Castaneda when I was young I will never forget. I will always think of it as what Castaneda taught me, but in truth it was what I learnt for myself by trying what Castaneda had written. How do I do that with Madame Blavatsky's teachings? Her books ask me to believe secrets. For the teachings that others have put out claiming Ascended Masters' input, do I believe because they claim meetings with Ascended Masters'?

For me the answers to these questions are no, yet without realising it many of my travels into the western Path in England effectively asked me to believe in Ascended Masters. In some way I think 5 Gateways does as well. He talks of Ascension, and it is my understanding that ultimately when people talk of Ascension then they are basing it on teachings of those who have ascended - Ascended Masters. I am not certain but I believe that they have a similar process to nirvana/samsara where people reach nirvana as enlightenment and resurrection. But once they have ascended, they cannot communicate except as Ascended Masters.

So how is Buddhism better? Reincarnation and Karma I am comfortable with. Why? I have experienced them but I don't know I have, so why am I comfortable? Meditation. I have recently come in meditation to the notion that I am working to become one with Sunyata - Emptiness. This is a yogic process akin to the Guru Yoga approach of HHSR as described here; to me this is the same as Ascension. But what backs my teachings? The Tradition. What backs 5 Gateways? Ascended Masters. Now I believe the Tibetan Tradition has a belief in Ascended Masters, I am not comfortable with that. But I am not comfortable with the Tibetan reliance on Gurus! However with the Tibetans I can read HHDL and HHSR, I can look at what they write and I can experience a little of it. That makes me comfortable. I can look at their Guru approach and can change their meditations to fit what I am comfortable with, to fit what I have experienced as true, and yet is not outside the accepted traditional teachings. Changing Guru Yoga to Yoga of Compassion is perhaps not what HHSR taught but is not inconsistent with any meditation on the 4 Brahma-Viharas.

So who holds Chris Bourne's reins - the narrator of 5 Gateways? Commerce? Unfair, but there is an element of truth in it; he needs income. Whilst that is a restraint it is not my main concern. Who controls Chris Bourne's ego? The people around him. And that is the problem with much that is the western Path. These separate groups are isolated, they are not part of a combined Tradition such as Buddhism here in Thailand. Or the Tibetan Buddhists? Whether their teachings trace back to Masters I don't know but they do have lineages which they are very strict about - for many including me too strict. These protections make me feel safe. When I watch 5 Gateways, I don't feel safe but I do feel attracted.

I have spoken of glamour with regards to ACIM, and I am scared of glamour when I look at 5 Gateways. When there are glamorous attractions in spirituality, I want to know that there is some kind of guardian there. And what do I see? No emphasis in a western Path on moral integrity. Dangerous.

When people are on the Path, how do you know they tell the Truth? In 5 Gateways there is one lady I felt confident in and one lady I did not have that confidence and felt there could have been an element of pretentiousness.

***My apologies to all at Openhand. I don't know you, I have never met you, and I have only seen the movie. What right do I have to say that one of the people is pretentious? None, sorry. In truth I am not saying one of the people is pretentious, only that one of the people came across to me as pretentious. Her movie image came across to me as pretentious but that doesn't say a lot about her - only her movie image.****

So why say it? People can say the right things but does it mean they are coming from the right place? This is such a problem in the West for those connected to the Path. The Lord Buddha spoke of the 4 Noble Truths - wisdom. I speak of the 4 Noble Truths - litany and dogma. It is not what people say, it is what they mean. If someone is pretentious (apologies Openhand - I don't know you), they will be saying the right things; but deep down within their pretence where is the truth? If someone just starting on the Path, say after their awakening, goes to Openhand and there is pretence they could be damaged for life. If Openhand were part of a tradition, people would be protected from any such pretence.

Now I have been critical in part of Openhand. Look at their website, watch the movie. I felt good after doing both. Look at what they do and judge for yourself, and after judging perhaps look again at my concerns. But if you are starting on the Path and have just had an awakening, you will be far safer in a Buddhist monastery - but for most in the West that Path is not enough.

I am left with the feeling that the western Path is fundamentally sourced from Ascended Masters - but not within a Tradition. Much that is western asks for faith, and whilst much in the East follows the Lord Buddha as a God with faith and without discernment this is not what the Lord Buddha asked for. Experience it for yourself, and if you don't experience it don't go there; please no pretence especially in the West as there is no Tradition protecting you.

Addendum

Why does it always have to be so personal in the West? The revelations made above by Ascended Masters are made personally to individuals. Why? We are One, not individuals. HHSR says [p143] "All the buddhas, bodhisattvas and enlightened beings are present at all moments to help us,"; isn't that enough?

Aren't people creative? When they create, isn't that a process of unity with the One? Yes that creativity means that the creation is personal to some extent, because of the personality of the person that creates. The amount of distortion that personality creates is difficult to assess, but there is distortion. Is the God that Neale Donald Walsch spoke with a distortion, or is it the Creator if there is such? Are the Teachings of the Ascended Masters not similar with the possibility of distortion? As soon as there is ego there is distortion. Isn't there an ego present with someone who says they have the right to communicate with Ascended Masters?

I don't know, but I know enough to question. And this means for me a need for safety measures. And the only safety there is is in Tradition. That part of the world which has an education that encourages ego and personality also has individual contact with Ascended Masters, whereas the Buddha taught experience Oneness for yourself, the Tao is the Path which is empty, and Emptiness or the Deathless underlies Buddhism. No personality, no individual ascents to heaven. Reuniting with the One is enough, caring for others is enough, not individual aggrandisement through ascension.

There are two areas of life where one can examine the development of this sexual excess - in the home and in society. Society's influence is exemplified by the media where a promiscuous lifestyle of famous personalities has been lauded for as long as I have been alive. Education could do more to create a more stable attitude to caring relationships but many teachers, including myself for a long while, are unaware of the impact of immorality on society. Sila is stability, it discourages greed, and of course that is where the cause of society's attitude to immorality arises - the need for profit in big business.

But I mainly here want to consider sila in the home. For me a realistic view of our relationships is deeply lacking, and this leads to instability. Within the home this lack of realism is perhaps at its sharpest. We need to look to Nature to properly assess these relationships. Fundamentally the woman establishes the home to bring up children, and the man acts as protector and provider. But more so the woman protects fiercely. In the West how many women approach a relationship with an honesty that says I am looking for a husband to start a family. Equally I could say how many women starting such relationships actually know that is what they are doing. The many teenage girls I taught were looking for a man, that was the level of it, sadly that was the way they measured themselves - by the quality of the man they found. These same teenage girls had a deep desire to look after babies, but there never appeared a notion that connected both of these instincts in a desire for a home, an environment to bring up children. However teenage girls did find my being single more of an issue than did the boys.

In the West the notion of love is the driving force. For teenage boys this notion of love got very little further than whether they could have sex with the girls, and many lifetime relationships started with these immature attitudes. Our children are born to girls who seek love from a man and to men who seek sex. In Hollywood romance ends with a wedding without even the pretence that marriage is concerned with a home and bringing up children. The most fundamentally important natural act we perform, the bringing up of children, is based on lies about differing views of relationship, neither of which involves bringing up children.

What then happens? The mother's instinct kicks in and she naturally develops ties with the child. Some men accept the role of fatherhood and provider, but most husbands lament the lack of interest the wife has for him with her attentions focussed on the children. In the West, this fundamentally dishonest attitude to relationships and family leads to many children having single parents. And within those single parent families there is the basis for many social problems.

And within families where couples stay together, what happens? The woman dominates the home, and even if the man has concerns for bringing-up the children the woman often rejects those concerns; her need to protect the children takes over and she takes all the responsibility. Within the guild of womanhood stories of the bad attitude of men prevail, and so it becomes easy for her to feel justified in rejecting the man's involvement. The man, perhaps willingly, accepts the role of provider and seeks fulfilment in his work rather than in the home.

And where is sila in all of this? How do the children become moral? Quite simply they don't, or per chance they do. Perhaps a child decides they wish to be religious and develop a moral sense then. But within the fabric of society a child does not become moral. So what is breaking down that leads to this moral absence? It is hard to say. What is clear is there is no moral imperative. This is driven by big business for whom morality is OK if it doesn't get in the way of profits - but deep down moral integrity has to reduce profits.

There needs to be a focus to bring sila into the upbringing of children. Somehow I feel that by nature it is the man who has to provide the moral direction, but I cannot substantiate that. What is definitely clear to me is that the woman will protect first and think of moral integrity second. I know of examples where the woman will protect her children from the moral imperative imposed by the man, often colluding with the child against the father. This might have short-term gains for the mother and child relationship, but in the end the child suffers. Once the father has been excluded often enough he gives up and puts his focus outside the home, and then the stereotypes of the guild of womanhood kick in and their wish-fulfilling stereotypes have come into fruition.

Social focus needs to return to the home, and within this focus there needs to be an increase in moral direction. This sila could be provided by the guiding hand of a well-intentioned father or by moral direction from the mother. This presents a conflict for the mother whose instinct is to protect the child first. This instinct needs to be assuaged by moral direction from society allowing her to defer to moral direction from the father if it is present. What is definitely clear is that the lack of morality in western society is a problem, and this absence starts from the home. There is little chance that the demands of big business are going to change, there is little chance that big business will promote a moral society. But many people know there is a problem. How many of these people see this problem and turn their attentions to moral improvement through the home? Most people turn their attentions to political systems, and seek political solutions. But such solutions are not possible in this day and age, big business is too powerful. Movies like Ethos point to consumer power in controlling the profits of big business, this is evidently true. But by taking personal control of your life, such as consumer choice, life can improve. In the same way life can improve by making a personal choice to be moral. Sila is a prerequisite for the Path, so this approach is also of greater social benefit. Conducting oneself with sila is the source of initial happiness, a happiness that increases with control of the mind through meditation. These can all start at home.

In Thailand monasteries are widely accessible, perhaps more so than churches in the West. It is common custom and practice for teenage boys to spend time in a monastery. Monks are seen as a moral source within Thai society, yet they don't see women in the same way. Nuns are not ordained in Thai Buddhism. Whilst this is an issue especially for westerners many Thai women do not see themselves as capable of ordaining. I observe this, but don't understand this without considering the possibility that here in Thailand men are perceived differently. What is the source of this perception?

I have not read, nor do I intend to read, "Men are from Mars and women are from Venus", but the book's premise is that there is a difference. From the 60s/70s the feminist movement quite rightly rebelled against the oppressive practice of males towards women, and demanded equality. This equality was confused. There were legitimate demands for equality in the workplace but many women by the time they reached 30 then found they were not fulfilled because they did not have a satisfactory home and family life. The affect of the feminist movement, whilst starting from the proper demand for respect for all people, was to move orientation away from the home, I discussed this here and in Matriellez on Education throughout.

It is important to recognise differences between men and women, and what women and men want from relationships. There is no point in living a political ideal that has no basis in reality. With a real view then problems can be solved, with an ideal in place people become repressed into a mould that no-one accepts, and that eventually leads to problems. In this case the problem we have is a lack of moral integrity because no-one is taking responsibility for it.

I am now going to attempt to examine the Bhagwan and his approach to spirituality. Firstly the Bhagwan clearly does not have sila. If I use the 5 precepts as a measure of sila then his approach encourages sexual excess. I couldn't imagine a spiritual path more attractive to western people than one which allowed young western people to bonk themselves silly in the name of enlightenment. From the outside that appears to be what he offered, and the two people I quoted above are still attached to sexuality, perhaps even addicted. I know one lacks sila, I am not sure about the other.

The other protective measure is tradition, the tradition protects people who become vulnerable when they start on the Path. In this video the Bhagwan starts by denouncing all religions. (Download the video at Top Documentary Films .) This denunciation has some element of truth in it. He says there is only one truth, I totally agree. But how do you describe that truth? The one truth can maybe be experienced by those on the Path, but as soon as the truth is described it becomes mental or written concepts. I have criticisms of religious institutions which I will describe but let me put this view as to how a religion might have started. An individual experiences the Path, and as with all such people they want to describe it and help others find that Path. As soon as they start to describe it, it becomes concepts. Maybe others follow, then they describe their own view of these constructs and a religion could form. Now what happens to this nascent religion? Over time more and more people add their concepts to the religion. Wise people follow the Path and add to the religion, and a religious doctrine builds up. Within that doctrine there is protection because these people add their warnings about the dangers on the Path, one such obvious warning being the danger of the lack of sila and the other warning being the lack of tradition. There is no doubt in my mind that the lack of sila and the lack of the need to accept a tradition enabled the perverse sexual practise that became part of the Bhagwan's teaching. It was necessary for him to denounce religion before he could teach the way he did.

It is easy to denounce religion to the westerners who flocked to India in the 60s and 70s. These "orange" people, like the hippies, rejected what had gone before, the rules and the repressive middle-class values; I too followed this rejection but I was lucky to be too scared to travel when I was young enough to have been influenced. The Bhagwan could have been a movement of his time, encouraging a generation discovering promiscuity with an approach that supposedly offered enlightenment. One friend described the corruption around him as being his followers taking advantage, but there is no doubt in my mind that his choice not to have sila and not to follow tradition setup corruption in his religious approach, whether by intention or not.

As for the institutional approach to religion the Bhagwan does have a good point, what the institution says cannot be the truth - because once it has been described (become a dogma) it is a dilution of the truth. People who seek the truth within a religious setup have to go beyond the dogma, and more than likely those people are not the major religious leaders nor are they those who prop up the institution. But what is important for protection is to recognise what is common in all traditions, and undoubtedly one major commonality is sila. Any approach to the Path which lacks sila therefore in my view is flying in the face of all the past practitioners. From my recollection the Bhagwan and his followers enjoyed that, as would I have at the time.

I am going to continue but it is time for the beach!!

I woke up thinking about this, and the thought of it quite freaks me out. I kind of enjoy my days. Get up. Meditation, writing, beach, TV. Now I have to change TV. I had already downloaded a Man U game, so I shouldn't watch that. And the hard drives of movies and TV shows. But then there is a Miro-full of downloaded clips. Yet my mind baulked at this, it is so used to being entertained. Clearly an addiction, clearly addicted to samsara. This will be a hard change, is it too ascetic?.

Today I woke up feeling a little stressed. But why? I went to two minibus terminals, asked a few questions in Thai, did some shopping, went home and came out again, visited the same two minibus terminals, found the food box outside the shoe shop, put it in my topbox, and went home. No real problem. Not as easy as just picking it up as before, but why get stressed? Waking up feeling stressed makes me think that stress is like emotion - I still have it stored in me. Freeing myself from anger means that when something could make me angry I have no anger inside so anger doesn't arise. The anger of the situation just passes away.

How is stress arising now? Life is easy, I have made it so. But something comes up, immoral or stubborn Farangs, Thai life with its disorganisation, crazy Farang drunks and other trivia; these alter the easiness of my life. I don't like it. What happens? In most cases I just deal with it, but in truth it doesn't just happen and I forget about it. When I am out the stress happens, washes over me, but when I get home I don't like it. I am therefore attaching to the stress, and that is why I had the stress feeling this morning. My attitude to stress is not right. Although my attitude to stress has improved because I am not under any stress, stress is still occurring because I want life to be a certain way and when it isn't I feel stress. I do have the right to work towards life being a certain way but when that doesn't happen it should not bother me. I should just accept it.

Yesterday the food thing was irritating, more so because the last few deliveries haven't gone right. But so what? Things don't always go right, let it go. Take it in your stride, accept it, and work at it until it goes right. Accept it and eschew stress. In other words I have not properly dealt with stress, I just don't live a stressful life any more. I have to deal with ridding myself of residual stress and not allowing new situations to cause me stress by simply accepting them. With my current weakness towards stress FarangTratCare cannot possibly happen.