[jungturk]

If you substitute "clinging" for "craving" (Burbea's Seeing that Frees expounds on this very clearly) then I think we get a better English interpretation of the material.

If the mind's full of clinging (either in demanding what isn't present or refusing to release what was present but which is now leaving the present) then that mind doesn't have any room left to experience aliveness.

So (to me) the material doesn't suggest asceticism or abandoning the human sensual potential, it reminds that clinging will sneak in and take over the mental cycles, undermining your ability to live to that potential.

[Viability1936]

I mean no offense if this the practice you've settled on and it works for your goals in life, but that is absolutely not what the buddha taught. It took me a long time to learn that what burbea was teaching is not 'buddhist' in any sense of the word. 'Meditating' to have pleasant or mind blowing experiences has nothing to do with developing the inability to suffer. Clinging doesn't sneak in and take over the mental cycles, "you" (me and anyone) ARE craving/clinging. Being is fueled by craving. Without it, there is no 'you'. The buddha taught the practice to reliably abandon craving and devlop the right view of existence. It has nothing to do with living up to you potential or anything like that.

I've listened to all of burbea's talks and read most of the TSTF, so i know where you're coming from. If it works for what you want, that's great. I would just encourage you look deeper if you think its what the buddha taught. Or really even related to what the buddha taught. It's pretty much the opposite direction

[EGreg]

Yeah, there are all kinds of spinoffs. How closely does Alan Watts actually teach Buddishm?