Michael Sternbach

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. The linked Wikipedia article didn't really clarify what is meant either. Are you suggesting that perceived reality is somehow just an illusion? If so, I would not agree. Usually, what our senses register is real enough - and there is much more out there than meets the eye. All claims regarding the 'emptiness' of the senses I heard so far struck me as pretty fruitless abstractions. That would not seem to hold true for all encompassing vision, however. The latter transcends the usual subject/object distinction. Alright, maybe we are about to find some common ground after all. The notion of infinity is indeed a loaded one. There is surely more to the concept than just space that goes on forever (or time, in which case we would speak of eternity). It's actually a metaphysical concept, although its properties can be studied in rigorous scientific ways. Anthrosophical mathematicians believe that that kind of study helps expand the mind towards an understanding of transcendence. A truly effective approach in my personal experience. For instance, it's easy to see that, with increasing diameter of a sphere, its curvature decreases. It follows that, if the sphere were expanded to infinity, its curvature would reach zero. In other words, the sphere would become a flat plane. Now if you were located at the centre of that sphere (which you couldn't help being, anyway, because its centre would be everywhere at all), that flat plane in infinity would surround you in every direction. Mind you, without any corners - it would still be a sphere! Some simple geometric exercises demonstrate that this infinite sphere does exist. You could not lay a finger on it anywhere. It can not be fully grasped by the finite mind, either, to be sure. But contemplating it does serve to stretch the imagination. This notion is also in keeping with contemporary cosmology, BTW, which states that space is most likely flat, overall - i.e., infinite. The question of setting exact boundaries, alright. Yes, any object exists in a plethora of all pervasive influences, connecting it to countless other objects. And yet it has certain boundaries making it distinct from others (e.g., the Coulomb force in particle physics). This ultimately boils down to a matter of perspective, I would say. I beg to differ! I actually once got an inkling of the unimaginable information processing that is constantly happening in our Sun when I was in a contemplative state. That was one of the most exhilarating and joyful experiences I ever had in my life! There was a strange familiarity involved, too, as though it invoked an old memory. Impossible to put it into words, though. This filled me with awe and left me painfully aware of how limited my oh so linear human mind really was in comparison to the consciousness of a star. Well, my awareness of that was my only solace at the time, actually. I don't look at the individual personality as an illusion. I do consider it an open system of sorts, though, and ultimately interconnected with All That Is. Not exactly one with it, in the sense that the universal field of consciousness would exist, whereas my individual personality would be somehow unreal. And yet not-two. I am aware that most Buddhists may disagree with me on this. In fact, already argued about the question as a twenty-year-old lad with a Zen priest in Kyoto's Sosenji, until he gave up and moved on with his lecture. It seems unlikely that we will be able to fully resolve the issue now to everyone's satisfaction.

Sorry, but I take that with a grain of salt.

It's everywhere and nowhere, dear Old3Blob!

Pain and trauma are felt in your consciousness, though. Therefore, the role of the mind is crucial here. To illustrate, it has been shown that wounded soldiers in sickbay who were going to be sent home were experiencing significantly less pain than those expecting to be sent back to the battle field after their recovery. Yes, and that's in line with my previous paragraph. Meditation practice can surely help alleviate the sensation of pain. As you probably know, some yogic practitioners etc. can take this really far! However, lacking that kind of practice, I doubt that severe trauma (or even just a tooth ache) would leave you so psychologically unaffected as your statements seem to suggest. That intense desire for the pain to stop, accompanied by impatience, fear, and despair, is too deeply rooted in our nature as physical creatures to be affected much by what is basically a philosophical outlook. But you will desire those things once they haven't been available for a (relatively short) period of time! To such a degree, even, that you would find it exceedingly difficult to maintain your usual state of joy and love. It would be pretty much put on hold due to more pressing concerns. Would you desire a dessert?

This lends so much credibility to a fascinating archaeological theory to put the Maoi of Easter Island, Stonehenge, and the Washington Monument in context!

Alright, but do you think your mind would still be filled with joy and love? (Serious question.) Oh, that's a remarkable answer! So, in your view, there are two levels of reality after all! With the absolute view only being applicable to a limited range of experience, strictly speaking. So how does this relate to what you said earlier: Okay, that resonates with me. Hah! I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Sorry, Dwai, we're back to the desert...

You may get an inkling that way. But can an ant understand the mind of a human? For that matter, can a cat do this? In order to fully comprehend the consciousness of a star, you would have to be one yourself, IMO.

There's the catch. Nothing comes with neat labels in the psyche. It's a question of personal experience, I am afraid. That being said, meditation helps. Which is learning to temporarily silence the chatter in our mind. Another clue: Practise paying attention to your very first thought regarding something. Before the analyzing mind takes control. Neither do I. However, from the conscious self's perspective, all that lives outside its realm is simply in the dark... Therefore, surfacing subconscious and superconscious information can be difficult to distinguish between sometimes. Again, it's a learning process. Compulsive states are more characteristic of subconscious than of superconscious influences, though. That sounds like you are modelling your higher self as something existing outside of yourself. I prefer to call it my inner self.

What???!!! You're saying this after all this time you spent on this forum?! Sulfur fumes if you were to visit my alchemical lab.

But what if you were stranded in the middle of a desert, without food or water? Don't you think you could be nondually complete all you want, your desire would get the better of you? Actually, I think you wouldn't even need to go anywhere for making this instructive experience. Better try it out at home first, with a full fridge in reach (just in case)... For starters.

And yet perceive them it does - although not as separate from itself (its self). Maybe Atman could even be said to be perception. The All Seeing Eye, as it were. How could there be awareness without perception? How could there be consciousness without either? What does 'the complete understanding' signify - in an infinite Universe? Can you understand the consciousness of a star? In my opinion, "playing comparative religion" is a good place to start.

And this is how Atman/Brahman - the ultimate subject - becomes its own object. For there exists no other, outside its own infinity. So it needs this infinity of points of reference - each acting as an observing self - to fully see (understand) itself. It needs this myriad of individual entities - on all levels of evolution and planes of existence -, each presenting it with its unique angle. All that is, has been, or can be. And by this divide, forgetting their divine nature... See you on TDB!

Perhaps we would have to clarify what exactly you mean by "full blown authentic agency" first. Basically, following the inner self's suggestions is not a difficult thing to do - even though the ego may find them challenging at times and prefer to ignore them. It is true that listening to that small voice within with consistence and confidence presupposes a degree of practice for most. Furthermore, I don't think that there is actually "a chain of command between mundane self and higher self." It's more of a cooperative endeavour in which the "mundane self" is granted free will to either follow along with the "higher self's" knowledge and wisdom or choose not to do so. Even though it would be in the "mundane self's" best interest to trust this inner guidance - doing its own thing is quite acceptable from the "higher self's" non-dualist view and understood as part of the former's learning process. As seen from a certain perspective, the "higher self" is "the mundane self's" entelechy and telos - the state of perfection or, perhaps more appropriately, completion that it aspires to.

Now adding a "B" to Atman turns it into Batman - which shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that it indeed has perception: and agency: Quod erat demonstrandum.

Actually, it is neither. It's a kind of spontaneous action not guided by your ever discursive mind, but by something deeper. I understand you're an advanced Taiji practitioner. Then you must know what I am talking about.

Welcome back, Awaken, and please reconsider your decision not to offer any translations any longer. Most of us will have to rely on Google translation anyway, but few of us have the time to translate every single one of your many posts. Since you always show your original Chinese version anyway, those who can read it can always do so, of course. But for those who can't, your posts will lose some of their relevance now.

This must be incorrect. Atman is synonymously the monad - the individual's innermost core. It mirrors All That Is. Therefore it must have perception. (The All Seeing Eye, the Witness.) And the act of reflection indicates that it has agency as well. The active and the passive.

Dwai, Would you agree that Atman has perception?

Well, since achieving spiritual immortality is the purpose of attaining the diamond body (or rainbow body), the latter may actually have been right up Nachiteka's alley.

Personally, I think that alchemy, TCM, and Daoism in general all have their roots in a far older body of wisdom and knowledge; the 'ancient sages' that are mentioned with reverence in some Daoist texts! In a much later time, observations and experiments were conducted in these and related fields, trying to regain the old knowledge based on extant fragments. This didn't always end well, however, as evidenced by those "elixir poisonings" mentioned above... A parallel development can be observed in the occident too, where bits and pieces of most ancient alchemical and other knowledge were being expanded on with varying degrees of success. There too, lack of context and general scientific knowledge sometimes resulted in certain... accidents.

In what way is your view different to what part of what I presented?

Besides prana or chi, and pertaining to a different level, shen (as relevant to Chan/Zen and some other Eastern traditions) can be translated as spirit.

I think that's a fair asessment. Just like in Kuòān Shīyuǎn's series of poems/images known as Ten Bulls, after having attained the state of enlightenment, the sage returns to the 'relative world' and attends to its needs and concerns. I would call it 'inner senses'. It's just that different systems employ different models and methods. But as they all work with the same conglomerate of physical/psychological/spiritual elements known as 'human being', there are countless overlaps between them. Often, a particular system can be looked at in terms of another and sometimes even be combined with it. It goes without saying that many traditionalists detest that kind of approach, though; in general, cultivation systems are advertised on the basis of exclusivity, not commonalities! However, practical experience transgresses such conceptual boundaries sometimes. For example, when I started practising zazen, I experienced various energetic phenomena not usually accounted for by Zen teachers/texts (with a few exceptions). It was not until later that I discovered that working with energy flows is central to certain other systems. Spirit is the carrier of consciousness. Where there is consciousness, there is spirit as well.

Removing hindrances is inevitably linked to subtle body and energy work, though, whether or not this is being acknowledged or focussed on in a particular system. On the other hand, there are various traditions that aim at building an astral vehicle or diamond body etc., so an interesting (apparent) dichotomy exists between those different approaches.

Yes, that resonates with me. Keeping the bigger picture in view, while nonetheless highlighting a particular aspect of it. Everything exists or happens for a reason and is 'redeemed', ultimately, yet dealing with the challenges of a dualistic world requires adopting more of a 'partial' view sometimes.