stirling

This is my experience too. Nicely said. I would say that anyone setting themselves up to have an enlightenment "experience" that matches anyone else's will find failure. While the insight can be applied to any aspect of duality, the "experiences are necessarily unique.

I started to type a response to the same statements Bindi made but I see Dwai has beat me to the punch, and quite capably. I am merely reposting his response because it is clear and brilliant and really deserves re-reading. Deep bows.

I can answer this one. Mandalas, visualizations, energy movement, appeals to individual nagas, dakinis, buddhas, etc. are relative practices used to work away at clearing obscurations that limit the seeing of things as they are. They can be useful in the right student, but once Rigpa (knowledge of the ground of reality in Tibetan Buddhism) is seen and understood such practices are unnecessary. Enlightenment is the ONLY eventual intended outcome. Once there is enlightenment all such practices are seen to have no reality of their own like all appearances.

Seeing duality is a misinterpretation of what is always actually here. Non-dual reality is always right here, and for the most part looks just like this. There isn't a choice between one or the other. Enlightenment is seeing through your belief in a person that chooses and realizing it was always just a delusion about how things are. There have never been any "stages". While you can get a glimpse, it isn't the complete realization. You are either see things as they are or you don't.

Dependent Origination is absolutely Emptiness is absolutely non-duality. You have to look at what they POINT to, not the language. These are conceptual ways to look at something entirely non-conceptual. They are like 3 separate people looking at the same ocean from different continents with slightly different perspectives.

"Perfect wisdom" is no less than prajna, IMHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism) Yes, you can get a glimpse (kensho) of how things are, but it isn't prajna. Prajna doesn't come and go, and is the nature of ALL phenomena and happening. Once seen is eventually always present. "Cessation of perceiving and feeling" it is imprecise as translated, IMHO, so it isn't language I would normally use. I always feel it implies a blacking out, or something along those lines. I would be inclined to say something like "dropping away of self" or "cessation of experiencing as a self", though seeing through self/other is only one way in. If there is some interest in penetrating and completely understanding the nature of reality, I would say that gnosis IS necessary, and seeing through the dualities of self-other/past-present-future/here-there is what is required. There is no logical or conceptual way to arrive at true understanding of how things are.

A belief is what we construct when we don't know. Gnosis is experiential understanding that is non-conceptual. Non-dual understanding is gnosis, and it marginalizes all beliefs, systems, practices, and cosmologies.

Wu wei is absolutely non-dual. Not enough people ask themselves if there is a "self" present when wu wei is realized. Alignment with what is happening in this moment without resistance IS an emptiness of "self" and "other" - IS absolutely enlightened action, IS absolutely non-dual.

Not speaking for steve who is certainly able to speak for himself, but I wanted to clarify something: "non-dual realization" is not a "state". States and meditative experiences come and go. They are experienced by a person who believes they have contrived their perception to be in a particular state. Non-dual realization is permanent. It isn't contrived, or achieved by ADDING something to experience, it is actually seeing reality with something LESS than the way we traditionally see reality. There is an "emptiness" of self/space/and time that has always been present right underneath our contrived self/space/time perspective and narrative. It is possible to see the old way, but always visible is the non-dual nature of all things. The only thing that can really be taken seriously (IMHO) is the suffering of appearances that still do not understand what they are looking at - which is itself illusory. The sincere wish to be of service to this suffering is what prajna/wisdom/compassion is, and how it manifests. Non-dual understanding makes it obvious that the attempted manipulation of the universe and illusory self was always impossible. There is only being in alignment with things as they are. See above. "Unbounded bliss" wouldn't accurately describe the non-dual understanding. I would question that too.

I agree that working to drop our conditioning is a worthwhile endeavor, but the idea that we are in charge in any way is something we can work to uncover in meditation. Using the simple "open awareness" method (simply sitting and watching thoughts, feelings and phenomena arise and pass) we can notice that thoughts come AFTER other phenomena. Thoughts are how the thinking mind processes reality, but as it turns out actively thinking is unnecessary. Most would agree that thoughts never entirely go away, but are properly seen for what they are - not an exalted function that we believe we MUST have that defines who "we" are, but rather just another sensory input which is no more important than smell or any other sense. Our choices are a product of our conditioning. What is most likely to happen is a function of how our "mind" is. If we are attracted to kindness, our actions become kinder. If we are fearful our actions come out of choices that attempt to preserve our illusory "self". Enlightenment is seeing through the illusion of a "self" with agency and realizing that neither ever existed and are impossible.

Dogmas are constructed within the delusion of agency so that we feel better about our actions and the world. Ultimately order and chaos are just ideas. Things are as they are. The way out is to learn to see through belief in the "self" and having let go of it find alignment with things as they are in this moment. Correlative data confirms that humans only tell the story to themselves about their choices AFTER something has happened. Your internal dialogue appears many fractions of a second after what has already happened. https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/ Those that live in their thinking minds are not experiencing reality, they are too busy making themselves an illusory "self" that they believe participates or has agency. The internal dialogue comments NOT on things that are actually happening, but always on things that have already happened OR imagined but illusory "futures" that never will in the way that they imagine. How might this challenging idea be a reality? It's worth thinking about what impact choices we feel we make might have on the world at all. If current science is to be believed the first event in the universe was a "big bang" that created a cascade of conditions working their way down to the present moment. What makes anyone think that their actions as an individual could move the needle under the weight of such a causal cataract? The conditions that exist in this moment of "choice" are only ones handed to us by our lifetime of conditioning, and conditioning. What we will do is a foregone conclusion.

I'm sorry if this is the impression you got. You can see for yourself that I haven't said or done anything like that. I actually credit the Upanishads as the influence on later traditions. Reread the thread if you are in doubt. I can see I am just frustrating you, so I'll leave this where it is.

Yes, I ALWAYS mean well. I appreciate you noticing. The Upanishads ARE special. My intention was never to belittle or take away from the specialness of the Upanishads which I have GREAT respect for, only to highlight that the insights that are there are a thread that runs throughout many traditions. The fact that I referenced materials on the same topic from other sources is precisely what a discussion IS. If we were wine tasting would your first insightful comment be "This definitely tastes just like wine!"? What if I had brought up a concept from science that echoed the qualities of Brahman posited - would that also be problematic? Are you looking for ONLY discussion that contrasts the quote with itself? This isn't clear since you just posted the text without any context about what you wanted from any following posts. If I stepped on your intentions for the thread my apologies, despite all of that. I mean this in kindness: It seems like you might be holding on to some sort of resentment or feelings about other religions or disciplines deprecating or marginalizing your belief system. Maybe you would be willing to share where those feelings come from?

Too late for luck, my friend! I understand if you don't want to answer my questions or engage further... I'm fine with: ...if you prefer. I would only say that you seem to have good taste in dharma. If you really dig around in the neighborhood of what you posted at the beginning of this thread and are open to what it might suggest, you might be very surprised with what you uncover. Hope you enjoy the remainder of your Wednesday.

There is no desiring to be anything, or anything New Age about it. I am a lineage teacher in the Soto Zen school as was my teacher, and my teacher before that. Both used anything from Ramana Maharshi to Rumi or the Upanishads in their teaching without batting an eye. My teachers in the Nyingma tradition before that happily quoted these, or the Pali canon, or Dogen in their talks. All are teaching from legitimate Wisdom/Prajna, which a teacher with deep enough insight will see clearly. It isn't hidden. Most of these traditions influenced each other, and are part of a continuum of teachings. There are even non-dual teachings in the Kabbalah, Christianity, Islam and more IF you know what you are looking for. There are as many entrances through the dharma gates as there are sentient beings to go through them, though the non-dual nature will always be present. Reality at its basis has no subject/object or self/other, no yesterday or tomorrow, no here or there. This is non-duality. Understanding is seeing the non-duality of all three in this moment. Daoism (at least in Lao Tzu, etc.) has it's "alignment", where self drops away and there is just "wu wei", action in line with what is happening and no "doer" - this is not different than emptiness of self and other. There is the Pali Canon's "no self", a similar approach. Speaking about New Age, how about Eckhart Tolle? It is obvious that he arrived via the non duality of time gate. There is: An "emptiness of separateness" as Tibetan Buddhism would have it, OR a unity... or a "not two". These aren't different, just described differently. A universe empty of separate things IS a unity of all things. A understanding of "no self" IS ultimately an understanding of "no other". Can you see what I am getting at here, even if you choose to disagree? Do you think something that is: ...cares about how you arrive at the destination, or requires "someone" to maintain its purity? It's worth considering... even this could be a gate.

I am utterly convinced that the correlations DO work. Is that a problem? I not sure why it would be. There is no question of toleration here. I am perfectly happy for you to resonate or like whatever works for you, and the same goes for anyone else. My first post merely draws parallels about what I perceive to be obvious correlations between different traditions and mentions that the Upanishads must be considered some influence on Buddhism. You could also read me as saying that Buddhism, read one way, does not contradict the Upanishads. IMHO it is only the terminology that confuses. Do I believe that there are clearer ways to express these ideas in the English language in this day and age? I do. I think the central understanding as expressed in your first post, or the Heart Sutra (see above) are about as clear as things get in traditional texts. The last sentence of your post cements my belief that these are one and the same. There are not myriad enlightenments - only "one".

Mind is one way of expressing it, but not the only one, of course. I am sorry if this is confusing. I find that "God", for example, is lacking as a descriptor since it suggests deistic beings that have separate existence somehow, or could be in some way exempt from cause and effect. Most terms seem to fail in most ways. I most often use the terms "presence" or "awareness" since they seem as simple and clear as you could get to me. Buddha doesn't use the terms Brahman or grace as far as I am aware, it is more down to a set of causes and conditions in one moment where realization happens. It is never up to "us". This would be a decent summary, IMHO.

Swami is very obviously highly realized. I agree with him absolutely. Nothing he says here contradicts Buddhism, IMHO, or any other non-dual understanding, but it IS suffused with the clarity I normally associate with Advaita teaching. It is easy to get stuck on terminology, and I appreciate how different sets of terminology have sewn confusion. This is the unfortunate byproduct of the underlying reality and trying to describe it with thoughts/concepts/ideas.

I think you are misunderstanding me, and for that I apologize. I am saying that enlightened mind no longer needs a structure to get it to enlightenment - it sees that all such structures are not enlightenment itself, therefore the "raft" is left where it is. Truly, no teaching or practice has ever enlightened anyone, so getting hung up on them is just another attachment. As for an enlightened teacher using historically available teachings as skillful means... nothing wrong with that, though the teachings don't have to be traditional or even denominational, and they are best when directed precisely at the obscuration in question, IMHO. It isn't the teaching that creates enlightenment, it is seeing through obscurations and finally understanding things as they are. I am not suggesting throwing out the teachings, only saying that once there is enlightenment the teachings are only helpful as a pointing aid for others. There is nothing further to understand once there is enlightenment. If you find a particular teaching effective that's great. I'm not wound up, just excited. You posted an amazing section of those texts, and I am always hoping people connect the dots. I think it is a shame that people get stuck in traditions and don't realize that there is teaching literally EVERYWHERE. In fact, the places where we have clinging/aversion or have cognitive dissonance in life are the most powerful and are utterly tailored to what we most need to clear.

Sure... why not... except that the instructions in Buddhism canon are much more detailed, and the pointing wider and broader. Both are useful - neither are singularly definitive. The "originality" of which teaching came first isn't particularly useful or important. You can't dilute the teachings. There are many "beings" walking around right now that embody the understanding of the teaching and could explain it better to you than ANY of the historical teachings simply because they can interact with you. Much more important.

I'm not saying that Buddhists are Hindus or vice-versa. Enlightenment is the understanding that all distinctions are meaningless. How the understanding is arrived at is meaningless. There AREN'T any enlightened Buddhists, Sufis or Hindus. The practices are the raft... it is discarded when the river is crossed. So, seriously, you believe in the existence of Brahman, but also in distinctions in the teachings? Can you see how that is incompatible? Read the quote you posted carefully.

Definitely continue to breathe.... otherwise it sounds like quackery to me. What are you hoping will happen if you find the right practice?

It's really obvious to me. The texts above make it quite plain, IMHO. Seeing through the terminology is the tricky part. Which sect of Buddhism does the pointing... or which of Sufism or anyone else are irrelevant. The basis of reality isn't denominational and isn't "owned" by any group... its universal. You don't have to be a Hindu to "see" it. The Oxford Languages dictionary (first google link on the page) defines Brahman as: . Perfect! It is FORMLESS, but is the birthplace of all forms! It isn't a person, or a destination - it is THIS. The term used in Buddhism would be Dharmakaya. Quick google brings up Wikipedia first: How's that? No cherry picking or deep searching - these were the first links that came up. The nature of reality isn't hidden, it's RIGHT HERE. - Either way, we can at least agree that the Upanishads ARE clear.

As beautiful and definite a statement of non-dual realization as you'll find anywhere. How much like this is later "Heart Sutra"? I could go on with many many more examples, but suffice to say that it obvious that there is some great influence from the Upanishads. Less familiar to most probably, but from what I think of as perhaps the most clear explanation of all: https://terebess.hu/english/hsin.html#3 Same "taste" as the Tibetan Buddhists would say.

You are most welcome to differ, of course. However I don't buy it. Having said that, I should also say that I DON'T CARE whether Prajna comes from the Buddha or Lao Tzu. IMHO what is actually important about the teachings is that they have successfully led countless "beings" to see through their delusions and become Arhats themselves, and thus the essence of the Wisdom contained in them has been continued to be shared and the body of teachings from new and culturally appropriate "skillful means" has continued to broaden.