roger

We don't see things exactly as they are. This fact hit me hard today.

Btw sorry if I came across as pompous or subtly aggressive. I agree with the Taoist principle that softness and humility are generally the best approach to human interaction. Sometimes I fail in that practice unintentionally or because of my own weakness and fear. Peace.

Another possibility is that he just doesn't know what to say or how to say it. He may feel ambiguously about the matter, or may not know how he feels. Two examples from my own life, from when I was a teenager, illustrate this point. I had this friend who I was very close to, who had severe depression. He would talk about it frequently, and I just didn't know what to say or how to help him, so I just kept quiet. Another time I was on a date, and I just didn't know what to say. I had had girlfriends before, and always seemed to come up with things to say, but this particular time, for some reason, I was at a loss for words. It was pretty awkward and she pointed out my failure to speak. She was a few years older than me. I think it really turned her off, because at the end of the date I tried to kiss her and she was like, 'Uh, no. I don't think so.' Lol

That's a touching and terrifying story. I'm glad your friend is okay.

I would consider it self-evident that one's beliefs are not 100% correct. The view you're suggesting, the idea that truth is relative, and that if one believes something, then it's true in a sense, at least for them, isn't logical imo. Things are what they are, not what they seem. Btw I know I added a few ideas to your words, because that was the world view which fits with the concepts you mentioned. Didn't mean to imply you said exactly what I said.

Hi TashiDolma. It's possible that he doesn't want to talk about it for personal reasons, other than not being a secular leader. Maybe he has strong feelings about it or doesn't want to offend anyone. There's no telling what his real, unconscious reasons are. He may for some reason feel threatened by the idea of speaking about it. He's human, and we all have our areas of discomfort. I attempted suicide many years ago, and I feel that it was wrong, and very selfish, because of the effect it would have had on my family.

Probably there are degrees of clarity. One person may see 10% of what's really there, another person may see 90%. I doubt anyone has ever had 100% clarity of vision and perception - that would be like understanding truth perfectly, which imo is impossible for a physical being. There's something else though, about the matter of seeing what's there. Some teachers I've read have taught this. There's a stage of growth that begins when the person realizes that what they see, believe, and interpret, is NOT the actual truth, or at least not fully. J. Krishnamurti put it, 'The word is not the thing.' Another way to put it is, 'Perception is not reality.' It's fairly easy to grasp intellectually. We have to make an absolute distinction between our own beliefs and perceptions, and truth itself. Most people confuse the two.

I've read that there are three main branches of Buddhism- Theraveda (example is Vipassanna); Mahayana (Zen is an example); and Vajrayana (Tibetan). Can anyone explain the major differences between these to me? I tried finding out on the Internet, but I found the explanations overly scholastic and difficult to understand. Thanks! Btw, there's a book called Essential Buddhism by Jack McGuire that explains the three branches. Does anyone know if it's good?

And I think ultimately, the empty space should be filled by truth itself, by divine love and one's true self. There's true healing and false healing. True healing is when one replaces illusion with truth. False healing is replacing illusion with other, seemingly better, illusions.

By 'the world is ultimately false', does that mean one's view, or version, of the world, is an illusion, or that the bed I'm laying on right now doesn't exist? I think matter is real - it's a form of energy, consciousness, Self. But the thing is that we have a 'story', a perception, an interpretation, of everything, that doesn't reflect the real truth. We have an illusory 'world' in our minds.

I thought of something that might be similar to what some of you are saying. When I say 'all is god', I guess you guys are saying, okay, but what is god? In other words, I'm being simplistic and not looking into the exact meaning of what I'm saying. I guess you guys are looking more deeply into it.

I find much of what's being said impossible to follow or grasp. It's probably because of my own limited intellectual capacity. (I also frequently found it very difficult to understand my teachers in high school) Then again I haven't studied this stuff like you guys have. Basically, my view is monism (all is one) and pantheism (all is god). Is that Advaita Vedanta?

I've experienced the kind of problem you're talking about. It might be helpful to let go of the sense of failure, of trying, and of conflict, and just do the exercise, and know that whatever your performance is, that's good enough. In other words, don't worry about doing it 'right', and abandon the notion of conflict - do the practice, and don't be concerned with succeeding or failing at it. You'll probably get better at it if you use this approach. There was a time when I was having difficulty pronouncing (mentally) my mantra. I decided I just wouldn't make a problem out of it, and I'd just do the meditation, and let whatever happened happen, and the problem was quickly resolved. Try to not see it as a problem.

Based on the ideas in the OP, I tend to take the perspective of Advaita Vedanta, which is the 'New Age' (for lack of a better way of putting it) perspective. From that point of view, everything is inseparably one, and that one thing absolutely IS - it eternally EXISTS, it's 100% REAL. This is also the Hindu view of yogis such as Paramhansa Yogananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Meher Baba, and Muktananda. The one real thing that is all things is God, Self, and perfect divine love. It is Tao, the universal, eternal, absolute divine reality. I know you guys are already familiar with this perspective. I'm guessing this is what is called Advaita Vedanta, although I've never learned the meaning of that particular term.

allinone, Listen man, you've attacked me in nearly every post you've addressed me. I'm neither hurt nor offended. Get real, be honest with yourself. The spiritual path isn't a big joke. It's a sacred and very serious thing. Rethink your life, your path, and your values. You matter, as everyone does. The price one pays for unloving behavior is truly extreme. It's not punishment. It's what's best for everyone. Be a man, not a cowardly little boy.

I was reading from Man's Eternal Quest at the bookstore tonight, and Yogananda helped me gain clarity about something that seems like a Buddhist teaching- identifying with the observer instead of with the observed. He said to just observe your life like you're watching a movie, without identifying with the drama and the roles you play. He said to identify with the Self and to not be attached to your experiences. This is similar to Ken Keyes's stage of growth he called 'conscious awareness', in The Handbook to Higher Consciousness, in which you observe your own and others' lives from a deep place of peace within yourself, not getting emotionally caught up in it all. I feel that these teachings are helpful descriptions of the enlightened state, where one is deeply at peace, free of drama, non-judgmentally observing the contents of consciousness, identified with pure being and awareness.

I was in a hospital once and didn't eat for about four days. All I had was cranberry juice. I never even got hungry or wanted to eat, and I felt fine and had plenty of energy. The question, 'Is it possible to live without food?' has a certain innocence to it, in that it seems to not realize a certain dynamic of words - the idea of absolutes. I'm saying, it may be POSSIBLE, but probably almost no one could do it. I do recall in Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogananda wrote of a person who never ate, but used certain techniques which made it unnecessary for them.

A Course in Miracles says that as long as one 'attacks', they will not and cannot awaken. Attack can, and in the majority of cases does, take very subtle forms. One may not even be aware that they have, or have been, attacked. Not all attacks are equally unloving or 'bad', of course, but imo it's always unwise to attack. I think attack is an absolute, in the sense that a choice is either attack, or it is not. Attack is in its nature hypocritical, in that the attacker claims to be justified. It's done in the guise of virtue or self-love. It's self-righteous. Attack usually passes as strength, courage, and power. ACIM says this is an example of 'upside-down perception'. Pride seems to be the problem. A guy named Howard Storm had an NDE, and in his book about it, said, 'Pride is the source of all sin.' Both arrogance and humility are far more a matter of how one treats others than they are of how one feels about themselves. Attack is the epitome of arrogance and the antithesis of humility.

I'm not sure about the techniques he used or the position he sat in. He told me that meditating so much enabled him to get by on only a few hours of sleep. He also said he would meditate as he went throughout the day (like a meditative mind). Basically, for many years he would have these brief euruptions of extreme fear, like short extreme panic attacks. After five years of meditating several hours a day, they went away.

I asked a guy on Twitter for advice once, and he said, 'Stop seeking and simply be.' The guy was big into Ramana Maharshi and the guy who wrote 'I Am That'. (can't remember his name) I haven't tried this, but it's one way to approach the path of awakening. Eckhart Tolle also teaches that seeking and searching arise out of and reinforce ego. His approach is to just live in the moment and be aware of what's going on in the here and now.

Is that like the teaching to 'live as pure consciousness'? You're saying to not identify with the CONTENTS of consciousness, but with consciousness ITSELF? How do you do this? Can you share the approach you use to accomplish this? Is Nisarga the guy who wrote 'I Am That'?

I think you're probably right. And imo the way to resolve the human self is through total self-forgiveness and the cultivation of self-acceptance.

You did Olympic Lifting? Cool! Is that to say you competed in the Olympics, or are you referring to a type of weightlifting?

You said you like S. Suzuki's approach. Could you elaborate on that? What exactly is his approach? I'm very interested because I've read a lot of good things about him. Did he write Zen Mind, Beginners Mind? Is it a great book?

Thanks! I learned something from this post - resting in and embodying one's true, meditative state and nature are the key. Meditation helps with that. As you said, first we do this in 'easy' situations, then bring that awareness to more difficult circumstances. I agree and feel greater clarity now.