s1va

We all make some type of mistakes and learn from them. Good to note you stopped smoking weed. What happened just happened and it's best to let it go at this point. Perhaps it was supposed to happen this way for some reason. I think you may have possibly opened your heart chakra and the mind perhaps is caught up with the intensive clearing. Grounding activities such as nature walk, gardening, etc. may be helpful to bring some balance. There are also some here in the forums who can remotely help others with energy stuff and certain issues. Do you do any other type of structured practices or follow any particular tradition?

Universe does not have measurable size at any given point and yet it is always expanding. Just like that. If your definition of Self cannot expand, then I guess I may not be talking about the Self. Could be something else.

The point is, the drop of water needs to conciously realize it is the ever expanding ocean. As long as it conciously knows it only as a drop of water, that is what it pretty much is.

It's not about positive or negative thoughts, but starting to observe thoughts as thoughts. With such observation, the mind will calm down eventually. But, it will still always be the mind. To answer your question, where do negative thoughts come from? The same place from where the positive and other thoughts come from. That is the best answer I can come up to that particular question. But, if you change the question to, why do negative thoughts arise in the mind? I can say that is due to our attachments and desires, our cravings and aversions to worldly stuff.

Hi Yosan! Welcome and look forward to your contributions in the forum discussions.

Hi Yonkon, Listening to music attentively or totally absorbed is a powerful spiritual practice in it's own right. The Vijnana bhairava tantra describes several types of unconventional meditative techniques to make the mind see the reality. One of them is to listen to music with complete attention. You say it didn't work so far. Are you so sure? Maybe it worked. Kundalini is nothing to fear as long as it was not triggered by some drug use, or any type of dumb brute force methods. Welcome to the community! Look forward to hearing more from you in the discussions. Regards, S1va.

Hello Chainikas, Welcome to TDB! Good to hear you are stabilizing and recovering, and you found some useful information here in the forums. Engaging in new activities will be a good diversion for the mind that was previously caught up in any type of habitual patterns. Discussing the spiritual topics of your interest with others here could be one such new activity you might find useful and supportive. It is one thing to just read the forums and a whole different thing to actually participate and be part of the dialogue and make some friends along the way. In my opinion, some good discussions or interactions with like minded people here can trigger some meaningful spiritual transformation for us. Look forward to hearing more from you in the discussions. Best wishes!

Ajnana or ignorance in Kashmir Shaivism:- As per Vedanta removal of ajnana or ignorance leads to moksha or liberation. As per Kashmir Shaivism, the ignorance is divided into 2 categories. The Paurusa ajnana (ignorance about one's nature as different from Shiva) and the Bauddha ajnana (intellectual ignorance). Self inquiry or other types of intellectual questioning and study of scriptures, could end up in the removal of Bauddha ajnana, but not in the removal of the Paurusa ajnana, which is removed only by the grace of a Guru or Divinity. One can reach silence and states of very high samadhi's such as nirvikalpa samadhi, etc., but this will not remove the Paurusa ajnana as stated below and therefore not result in liberation as per Kashmir Shaivism. From 'The Secret Supreme' by Swami Lakshmanjoo Kashmir Saivism explains that ignorance (ajnana) is of two kinds: paurusa ajnana and bauddha ajnana. Paurusa ajnana is that kind of ignorance wherein one is unaware of realizing one’s own nature in samadhi. This kind of ignorance is removed by the grace of masters and by meditating upon one’s own Self. And when this ignorance is removed, you find your¬ self in the real knowledge of Saivism, which is all being, all consciousness, all bliss. This kind of knowledge is called pau¬ rusa jnana. When you possess paurusa jnana, you realize your nature of Self perfectly. Bauddha ajnana (intellectual ignorance) occurs only when you are completely ignorant of the philosophical truth of the monistic idea of Saivism. And bauddha ajnana is removed by studying those monistic Saiva texts which explain the reality of the Self. Therefore, these texts are the cause of your being car¬ ried from bauddha ajnana to bauddha jnana. Bauddha jnana is thought-based and is developed through the intellect. Paurusa jnana , on the other hand, is practical and is developed through practice. Paurusa jnana is predominant over bauddha jnana because when you possess only paurusa jnana, even then you are liberated in the real sense. In this case, however, liberation is attained only after leaving your body. When, how¬ ever, at the same time, you attach bauddha jnana to paurusa jnana, which means that, on the one hand, you practice on your own Being and, on the other hand, you go into the philosophi¬ cal thought of the monistic Saiva texts and elevate your intel- lectual being, then you become a jivanmukta, one who is liber¬ ated while living. If, however, you possess only bauddhajhana and not paurusa jhana, then you will not attain liberation either while living in the body or at the time of death. Bauddha jhana without paurusa jhana is useless and will not take you any¬ where. The study of texts shines perfectly only when there is practical knowledge at the same time. Without practical knowl¬ edge, philosophical study is useless. Bauddha jhana will bear fruit only when paurusa jhana is present and not otherwise.

It is not about negating anyone's or shared experience. It's alright with me if you feel or think that is what it is. You are welcome to draw your conclusions. Also, I feel it may not be wise on my part to continue expanding on this here in this thread. So, I will step aside for the discussion to continue.

I get what you say. I was describing my experience and understand fully well other's experiences will be different. I did not state or imply that others will respond or experience in the same way. But, there are also patterns and there are things like similarities, and learning from others experience. It is possible to infer meaning from a deceptive experience to see if it fits into a broad categorization like addiction, without everyone having to respond in similar ways at all times.

I get what you mean. In the way you describe, it can be classified as habit. It's all about the way we describe and explain things, isn't it? After I quit smoking, I used to occasionally get smoking dreams for several months. Later it became less in frequency. But, I used to get them once in a while for years. This shows how strong the subconscious impressions were and how strong the resulting craving was. Such powerful craving is addiction in my definition, no matter what you explain. But I do get the line of your argument.

Oh I have what I consider good experience with smoking for about nearly 9 years. Used to smoke a pack of cigarettes (or more) every day. So, I know something about addiction. I quit on 2001, it's been 17 years now. I could relate to your experience, and it sounded like addiction in my view, as I stated earlier.

Some of us just need an excuse in the name of topic to discuss. Trust me, some good can come out of this (but may be mostly not)

It's not my intention to cite and not explain. I have explained my views elaborately in some other threads. I will still make an attempt here with the time I have right now. Also, not sure if this is the right topic to discuss this, being in Buddhist section of the forum. I will keep it short. This may also bring up endless rebuttals, challenges and arguments from some here, that is why I don't bother to elaborate anymore. Vedanta realization is about avidya or ignorance clouding the Brahman/Atman. All that is needed is for this cloud to pass and the Brahman to shine like sun. Jnana or Knowledge by intellectual questioning is enough to remove this ignorance. Everything is also an expression of one Brahman in this non-dual. Abhinavagupta's non-dual is bheda-abheda, it accepts both differentiation (immanent) and the non differentiated conciousness (transcendent) to be equally and simultaneously true. It is all one vibration of the divine in KS. Therefore duality is equally valid in this view as the non-dual. It is never not the true, partially true or just a stage to cross over to higher. Then, it is not the avidya/ignorance that is the problem, but it is about maya (a divine force) that makes us forget who we are and engage in this game. The anugraha or divine grace helps remove the Maya and make us realize, we are essentially Shiva. This may sound similar because there are some similarities. But there are some glaring differences. The vivarta vada, that the manifested world is not real, but appears so, like a rope mistaken for snake is entirely rejected by Abhinavagupta. He explains why in detail. There can't be one Brahman that is all knowing and all pervading and also ignorant (avidya) at the same time. There are some major logical loop holes as pointed by many. As it concerns to Buddhism, it is even simpler and clear to see the differences. There is no Isvara (one all encompassing divine), Buddha rejected this completely and he is right in my opinion. There goes most arguments towards jinanmukta. Even ignoring that huge thing, anatta, no self and one supreme Self /Atman are diametrically opposite concepts. Emptiness is NOT the One Brahman. Never. Why do we need to combine everything and put them all in one bucket? Is it because it gives some comfort to the mind. The differentiations are important. They result in different levels of end realizations, like Arhat, immortal, realized immortal, Buddha, etc. Edit: These are not simply some superficial differences. I urge you to read some works of Abhinavagupta and Kashmir Shaivism, if you haven't done so already. Knowing you, I think you will agree when a reasonable argument is made.

Where is what? Addiction? Not sure. What you described fits my definition of addiction. Doesn't matter what happened later or when. Everything transforms sooner or later. That doesn't mean they were not what they were at one snapshot.

I agree. Jinanmukta and Buddha are so different. Sakyamuni Gautam Buddha has gone to great lengths to explain the difference in detail. It is sad to see such generalizations calling all realization as the same. It took me a while to understand the differences. Jivanmukta in my view is similar to Arhat. But, not a Buddha, it is vastly different. As you pointed out the realization of Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism is also different from jinanmukta. They are so different as I tried to explain in my other thread about Abhinavagupta's non-dual vs. Vedantic Non-dual. Abhinavagupta has explained the differences beautifully in his works Tantra Loka and Tantra Sara.

That is addiction in my definition. But, I am fine that you see it as different and more complicated.

Exactly. This is what I meant by the statement pleasurable acts are not necessarily always a sin. But, it is very hard to engage in some immensely pleasurable or pleasing activities and not get attached/addicted to them, unless we are Trailanga Swami as you mentioned in an earlier post. So, better to watch out!

I don't have the time to explain this karma and repercussions in detail right now. But, for anyone who is interested, I would suggest checking out the following book, 'On Wings and Wheels - A dialogue on Moral Conflict by Swami Chinmayananda'. He explains this and other concepts of Gita beautifully in his other books and speeches. This book starts with this topic on the first page, to explain why no action by virtue of that action alone is either a sin or a merit. https://www.amazon.com/Wings-Wheels-dialogue-moral-conflict/dp/B0046FLPQI DESCRIPTION A conversation with Swami Chinmayananda on moral conflict highlights the theory and principles of ethical thought in Indian philosophy. Swamiji synthesizes many conflicting viewpoints with clarity and simplicity. Total Pages 65.\n

There is a fundamental difference between those. May be you are not familiar with them. Krisha engaged in war killing others. He did not accrue any karma. However there were repercussions for his actions. This is the whole concept of Gita. He is engaged in those actions and will undergo the consequences, but he is not affected by them in anyway.

Yes, if a person engages in an act that a police officer thinks is illegal, the person will undergo the consequences. That is not what I meant when I talked about not creating karma. Once again, this is mixing things with Karma and repercussions. There will be repercussions for all actions. Sometimes people kill in self defense. There are exceptions to laws. The point I was making was any action by the virtue of that action alone is neither a merit, nor a sin. I stick by those words. Consequences of an action and accruing karma are two different things.

I don't have to use the technical terms someone deems necessary to explain my thoughts. You want to stick with the first dictionary definition of 'karma', karma phala and dharma, and want to describe only with those words, go ahead. My point was such dharma is always subjective to the action in question and the intent and the context etc. Anyway, thanks for reading my posts, find what you think as fault in my arguments and further taking the time, many times to mark my posts with a Negative ("Sad") emoticons to my original comment, followed by your explanation, which by the way I disagree and stick to my original statements.

I think everyone here understands the way create karma is used in this context, both in question and answers. If we want to argue on syntax and semantics, yes, we can!

In my friend's case, yes it is some sort of desire. But not necessarily with everyone all the time. The following example is not about cigarettes, but in general about likes/dislikes driving people to certain actions. Let's say someone has reached Buddha or Enlightened state. Where this person lives, there are apple and orange trees. When this person wakes up everyday, she has a choice to either have apples or oranges for his breakfast. This particular Buddha, let's say chooses to have Apple every single day, because she prefers apples over oranges. No other reason and there are no other choices available. If there are no apples and only oranges, she would have no problem eating them. But, when there is a choice she prefers one action vs. the other. Sure, this liking is because of some subconscious impressions from before. But, such likes/dislikes when we normally discuss about karma from the aspect of bondage, does it mean this person has desires for apples and therefore she is not enlightened? Not in my view. I think such preference and basic likes and dislikes will always be there no matter what state a person reaches, until there is any trace of individuality left.

I had friends who smoked cigarettes casually and were not addicted. Sometimes they smoked everyday for a while. Somehow it just didn't affect them the same way it did for others. But most people that I know who smoke cigarettes everyday are addicted.