Lucky7Strikes

Who is the "I"? What is the "ego"? These questions should be investigated before worrying about what would happen when the ego is dropped. How do you drop something that you don't even know exists for certain? There is a reason why Zen students struggle with such koans for months/years. It can even become a obstacle if you accept someone's conceptualized answers to these questions, but it seems like you have an inquiring mind anyway . Haha, I posted the above before reading your last post. Good luck!

I have recently read a book by Shindo Yoshiharu advocating "half-baths" and wearing at least 4 layers of socks (4! not a typo). His general thesis is that you should always keep the lower body warmer than the upper body. Here's a brief article on him and his methods. Apparently the health benefits are incredible. Anyone have experience with this or can relate to it from other practices? http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashbo...thier-life/8023

...I guess it's theraputic for people with really low body heat? Not to be done by healthy people?

I agree with 11:33 that the pursuit of something called enlightenment is totally natural. I'd just add that it isn't exactly that there is a destination called "enlightenment" but simply the Path in that direction. So the natural tendency of the Path would be towards a more stable, peaceful, and joyful life. I see it as a continual growth and expansion of consciousness (and/or energy? perhaps). But many people deviate from the Path under the belief that this natural inclination towards happiness can be somehow satisfied by material conditions. Which is fine as long as they learn the futility of it (as I did). The traditional Zen saying that cultivation is enlightenment and enlightenment is cultivation sums it up nicely.

Read the welcome page...

Goldisheavy, did you read through the entire thread? Or did you tell yourself that the people who posted were morons and don't contemplate? I believe when we mention Advaita Vedanta we are not speaking of the literal school... Just as you have faith in your skepticism and critical views, the followers of the Pure Land sect have faith in Amitabha Buddha.

Exactly. So why did you write so much about it throughout the thread. For the sake of conversation you need "place holders" in the sentence. And so it is when you write about emptiness/Brahman. It simply leads one astray by telling them it is this or that. What is important is that the conversation leads the seeker in the right direction. Whew! My brain's about to burst from reading through all this ! I think all that needs to be said has been said in this thread. Perhaps my outlook on the intentions behind the usage of terms like emptiness or Brahman do not really belong here where people are trying to ascertain that Advaita is this and Buddhism is that.

You need words to describe experience. Language is expression and geared towards communication. But with what purpose are you describing such experiences as 'oneness' or 'dependent origination?' I get the sense that many who experience this state conclude "yes this is it!" and go over to someone and say "reality is so and so and yours is an illusion!" It can easily lead one to a path of imitation wherein the conceptualized truth hides the ego. The ego is rather reinforced under the disguise of egolessness/righteousness. I think this is why teachings of sages like Ramana Maharshi were always formulated regarding the questioner. The method of inquiry, as much as it is rooted in the analysis itself, is also valued for the attitude it leaves the seeker. It makes him into a one big question mark and so that leads to the deconstruction of preconceived views. It's not that I disagree with you, but just reading over this thread leaves me thinking how terms like "Brahman" or "Emptiness" can be cheaply and imitatively used in mere philosophical word play.

HAHA, good luck then! I will go recycle... . I do appreciate you sharing your experiences earnestly. .

It is not a misuse of logic in the sense that the phrase "harm to one is harm to all" will resonate rightfully when one is within the peaceful state of compassion/oneness. And unless that phrase precisely brings that feeling of compassion within you at the moment of its conception, your mind can play with the concept for negative means. For example in the moment of desire (a bad one in this case let's say), your mind may go "harm to one is harm to all" then question what exactly this "one" is (as that desire will try its best to justify itself) and concluding that since "one" is only in relation of the "all" that there really is no harm from one to another, but only the harming itself (in which case it will no longer be understood as "harm"). What precisely is individuality? You claim that nothing you do isn't affecting everything. And so everything affects what "YOU" do. And so what exactly is "YOUR" doing? You state these very same sentiments in your description of your experience. I am simply trying to say that the notion of oneness can easily become a double edged sword for the mind.

That realization is a state to be reached. An illusion is existing within that perspective of the illusion. Your claim of "all appearances are from the beginning empty" is a very meaningless claim IF it is trying to formulate how Reality is. I see "trying" and "realizing that a separate observer cannot be found" as interchangeable terms for those of us who read/investigate into these things. What's the difference between the tendency to project a self and the self? Something IS because it is projected. So you CAN get rid of it, just as you CANNOT get rid of it. It is a practice until it is truly actualized by your experience. What is the use of running around saying I am happy I am happy. Or "ah! emptiness." One may become happy in doing so. So that is practice. What is and already so is what your reality is. Man lives in his imaginations. Having insight is a transition to another more differentiable state. Ha! Just what I was going to write! Except that the line between appearing very real and being real are divided by a very thin line...perhaps no line at all.

Right view, no view, it is to lead one to the experience or 'transition.' I totally agree. The phenomena of non-phenomenon is not to be phenominized (hehe....making up words here ) As I noted before, I believe that it is a mistake when the Tao or Brahman is conceptualized in terms like "non-phenomenon" with the attitude of "this is how it is..."

"Harm to one is harm to all" can easily be misconceived as...as Charles Manson put it: "If everything is one then nothing wrong," or "Harm to all is Harm to no ONE." So I would be careful to come away with such a statement, since it can easily be manipulated within the mind. I would also hesitate to conclude that there is no individuality. I believe that matter is, as you did, to be experienced and not to be conceptualized. Lol...so as Trevcaru said...forget it..?

To imply that Buddhism claims to be utterly unique or is not, and to be so damned certain about it just smacks of ignorance. To a non-contemplative everything is obvious. Once you contemplate what non-contemplation and obviousness is, it stops being obvious. Then why do you speak. That's idiocy of the highest order. Moron...?What exactly does the moron meditate on? What is his meditation? Everything is so obvious.. I don't get this VIEW you are referring or precisely your understanding of meditation. It seems like you are already on a bandwagon. The very tone of this post reeks of hypocrisy.

I would like a general response from the bums on the current teachings of Neo-Advaita. There are many modern teachers who present the Advaita philosophy in the total sense of "there's nothing to be done, there's no one here, there's nothing to realize...etc." Although the teaching seems sound, I can't but get a feeling that it is also a trap or someone declaring an absolutist view and subjecting everything into it. . Here's a list of few of the many teachers out there today and a link to Tony Parson's speaking. Opinions, please! http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_neo.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-zMV1x6q0...feature=related

I agree that the term No-self and Self are interchangeable. Depending on the reader's maturity of understanding, the terms, as mystical as they are, simply point to the same experience. I see it this way: "It is not" is also "It" in itself. In regards to Ramana Maharshi, he declared that the witness must also disappear. I am beginning to think that the conceptual aspects of the "Ultimate Truth" presented by Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, such as the notion of emptiness, is really a description of the path and not the "Ultimate Reality." Isn't reality according to one who is experiencing it? How can we know the worlds of the rivers and the worlds of the mountains? And if we did, could we explain it rightly to a dog? Furthermore, Chuang Tzu did say that when the fish has been caught, the trap can be thrown away.

I would like a general response from the bums on the current teachings of Neo-Advaita. There are many modern teachers who present the Advaita philosophy in the total sense of "there's nothing to be done, there's no one here, there's nothing to realize...etc." Although the teaching seems sound, I can't but get a feeling that it is also a trap or someone declaring an absolutist view and subjecting everything into it. . Here's a list of few of the many teachers out there today and a link to Tony Parson's speaking. Opinions, please! http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_neo.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-zMV1x6q0...feature=related

Thank you Xabir! That article was very relevant. I think I'll have to go through your entire blog before posting any further on your points. Otherwise this could go in circles due to the nature of language, which as you said earlier, should be addressed.

Yes, it was an accidental post. The thread was not intended to discuss what is a trap or not. Although that would have been valid if you related it somehow to Neo-Advaita. The intentions of certain words should be examined wholly. So... You need to refine your understanding in contemplation. Don't just jump to conclusions. Examine matters. .

You must have a rainbow tongue...whatever that is

Xabir, what is your view on cultivation and practice?

I don't imagine that one should sit and refrain from moving. The core teaching is that there is "no one" to do the action in the first place. You have no choice in the matters of doing or not doing. The action is simply done without the doer. I think it has nothing to do with urgency. Hmm...your message on doing and not doing is kind of confusing here (as it should be ) What exactly is the difference between "doing" and "not doing?" The Advaita view proposes that since there is no "doer" no action is done, it only is being. So it's not a question of you can or you can't. Or perhaps it is....? When one needs goals, is not that goal already actualized in that person having a goal? What does it matter for one to have a broader mind to contemplate. What is there to contemplate over the matter when one becomes convinced that there is no one comtemplating? And yes! I agree that the teaching is meant to take down the limits, or to broaden them to an extent. But then what? Many critics of the Neo Advaita movement suggest that the teaching ends/is stuck at this stage of destruction. Is liberation to laugh on top of the rubble? The Avadhuta Gita does say that there is nothing to attain, that you are already the Truth. Yet it also declares, "The avadhuta never knows any mantra in Vedic metre nor any tantra. This is the supreme utterance of the avadhuta, purified by meditation and merged in the sameness of infinite Being."

Both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have taken different forms and doctrines throughout history. So I don't think you can even say that Buddhism is better than this or that. Yet imho, there is much more focus on devotion in the ancient Advaita scriptures than the Buddha's original teachings. I'm not exactly sure which sutra it is but in it the Buddha mentions how his teachings should not be taken as absolute, but that the seeker should discriminate all teachings before accepting it to be true.