old3bob

"Because there is a fundamental spiritual perfection, many say that nothing needs to be done except to realize it. And yet..." I'd say that our human mind can not realize that which is beyond its ability but it can be still and clear, so the way I'd put it is that Spirit realizes Spirit (which had been veiled yet always present) which is very different from an idea of the mind getting it, for if mind could get it then it could also lose it.

Co-opting aka stealing is not ok by me is it for you ?

For instance: American and Hindu Indians do not appreciate 'New Ager's" co-opting or claiming this or that about their ways or trying to teach their ways without them being qualified to do so, thus using parts of same as if they are also authorities on such, or conflating parts of their teachings into a big warm, half-baked fuzzy ball . Another example is (unqualified) Kundalini yoga masters in every other street corner yoga studio in the U.S. charging $50 and up per lesson.

sure: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Panentheism

on some levels that may apply but it does not apply to those that have recognized and overcome their own (potential or actual) evil, so we have another "New Age" like saying of generalization and misunderstanding imo.

i can relate to that for ever since I was a little kid I could swim very well and enjoyed being in the water, so now and then I found it kind of strange when I saw someone afraid of getting into a pool because they could not even dog-paddle and would sink, or were unable to go above their knees at an ocean beach, thus I was assuming everyone had at least the most basic water skills but it is not so.

perhaps what was meant and the way I took Steve's last post was if one does not have a solid fall back position or dharmic default then shit can happen if floating upon the wind without such...

overlap included, an excerpt which could help with the dual and non-dual quandary: "....Later on, with the development of the concept of Brahman (the supreme cosmic spirit which is regarded to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) in the Upanishads panentheistic notions became more frequent among Hindu thinkers. Although it is commonly described as subsuming all being, Brahman is also described as the embodiment of non-being as well. While such a description is more than somewhat nebulous, it could be interpreted to mean that Brahman also transcends the physical universe and represents a realm inconceivable to humanity beyond the physical realm of "being." Thus, interpreted in this fashion, the conception of Brahman becomes decidedly panentheistic. Even the deeply personal view of divinity propounded in the Bhagavad Gita the most popular religious text in Hinduism, contains elements of panentheism. In the Bhagavad Gita personal and loving elements of God are unraveled for the reader as the divine Lord Krishna pilots young warrior Arjuna's chariot into battle. Panentheism seems evident within this formulation of God as well, in various lines of the poem such as Krishna's delineation of his immense heavenly prowess: "With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe." This seems to suggest that God (Krishna) contains the universe in which he is currently present and more, a definite variation of panentheism. It is safe to say that Hinduism in general, while being panentheistic as is clear from above, has a pantheistic overlapping between the world and some part of the divine."

Are you under a qualified teacher? It doesn't sound like anyone here has asked that simple but important question, (granted giving some good tips is one thing but not the same as a teacher in person) and your questions here indicate that the answer is no.

I always liked the following two saying that are used in military intelligence yet can also be used in various spiritual teachings. "The need (or not the need) to know" and the WWII one of, "loose lips sink ships". (with an implied combination of both)

Siddhi's misused but redemption comes later: "The life of Milarepa From the Gungthang province of Western Tibet, close to Nepal, Milarepa (1052-1135) had a hard childhood and a dark youth. He was only seven when his father died. Relatives had taken over his father’s property and mistreated the bereaved family. His mother, bitter, sent Milarepa to train in black magic, to wreak revenge on those who had blighted her life. She was given her wish – Milarepa proved adept at the practices he was taught, and unleashed a tide of destruction, killing many. But he came to regret his actions, and looked for help in shedding the bad karma he had acquired during his vengeful adolescence. He first attached himself to the Nyingmapa Lama Rongton, who, observing that Milarepa had a karmic connection to Marpa, sent him to learn with him. Marpa, being aware that Milarepa had first of all to purify himself from the negative karma he had accumulated,..."

"Also btw Jesus used his siddhi’s and not for entertainment, and I’m referring especially to his healings. Perhaps some subtle abilities can be parlour games, in fact I’m pretty sure this is true, but I’m not in the business of developing parlour game tricks" By Bindi I'm tempted to say indeed, whoops I did. Agreed on Jesus and more so with many additional aspects! If or when ego gets twisted and takes over and uses siddhis to various degrees then far more can go south than just parlor games or relatively minor problems, namely falling to the hell realms, its demons and humans being preyed upon or turned as drastic examples.

oops, you're right I was thinking of one of Stirling posts when I wrote that.

Btw, the historic Buddha used his siddhi's and not for entertainment, as have other great yogi's, mystics, etc....the important idea that is taught us students is not to get hung up on them before Self Realization. (or drop out after)

and common word meanings can also be quite different...like the word locust in the Bible, for instance there are locusts as in grasshoppers and locust as in the carob bean. I don't remember the verse right now but I believe it was about eating locusts which more palatably would mean eating carob beans and not grass-hoppers.

Indeed ;-)

Hey Mark, no problem with your path unless someone in it try's to conflate it (whether with gross or subtle misrepresentations ) with another path that is definitely different. I'm fairly certain you and your school would feel about the same if it was done to your teachings. Btw. I happen to like Zen being that it is closer in several ways to Taoism than are other forms of Buddhism, but again one can only correlate so far before intruding one way or another, imo.

surely you know the Buddhist position on such questions, so why do what sounds to me like trying to extend and continue a debate with obviously irreconcilable points, thus we can go our own ways and quit poking at the elephant in the room and saying it is not there.

they are not equally true according to the founder of Buddhism as recorded and handed down by his close monks. So here we go again with the new age like correlation mind...

yea to Hinduism everything is under Sanatana Dharma but the Buddha Dharma openly rejects that. So in a way saying that is an affront to Buddha dharma and Buddha Dharma saying otherwise is an affront to Sanatana Dharma. Most of the time the different ways do not get violet with each other since it is a common ground precept not to do so, which doesn't mean there is not or never an under current of spiritual like condescension with each other.

yea there is some common ground but there is also a complete break that attempted correlations do not bridge, for instance: In Hinduism, philosophies are classified either as Astika or Nastika, that is, philosophies that either affirm or reject the authorities of the Vedas. According to this tradition, Buddhism is a Nastika school since it rejects the authority of the Vedas.

so Striling are you going to state that you unequivocally embrace the Brahman/Atman and eternal teachings as presented in the Upanishads thus not per your attempted correlations, If not forget trying to convince me otherwise. (even if you quote everything under the sun)

" I’ve had a chance to look a little deeper at my own practice and perspective and have some additional clarity. I’m grateful to everyone participating" by Steve... and Indeed possible for all participant's:

well if a husband sincerely says to his wife that she is pretty all the rest of those definitions should not matter.

can we all agree that one hand clapping is non-dual, it sure sounds like it ;-)