dwai

This is silly! The fact that you are making such a hue and cry about "No Self" is because you start with a "Self". So, your original premise is that there IS a Self that you are trying to prove as non existent. It is a matter of perspective and syntax that makes a Buddhist claim "No Self" while a Advaitin says "Self" while a Taoist says "It doesn't matter". Shankara said "Brahman is Silence". Buddha said "I don't want to talk about it". Lao Tzu said "The tao that can be named is not the Tao". What this means is that all this brouhaha about the subject is really a bunch of malarkey that people come up with when trying to explain an inexplicable experience. The fact is, as soon as we put a structure around or try to explain this "existent/Non-existent, neither-existent, nor non-existent" thing, we end up diminishing it to something that it is not. So, to me, it makes sense that I consider this "thing" the Self, because that is what I have experienced in the gap between thoughts. To you, may be it is "Not Self". It doesn't matter...the experience is what is important...the direct cognition of it...the intuitive intelligence (Prajna) that rises from it. It makes us realize that material things are transient and don't matter, in face of the Eternal "Nothing/Something-ness".

When you strip away everything that is "Not Self", what is left is the Self, the indivisible, the constant. Like I have mentioned earlier. I is not a thought. I is that indivisible, constant, eternal, unchanging. The trick is that everything is "I". What is a thought, a phenomenon, is the "I am this" or "I am that". The Subject pure is "I", the predicate is the phenomenon. When one realizes that, they realize that what they consider the "I" is really not the "I". The Real "I" is objectless Consciousness.

it's a hoax. It has been proven that it is not based on any true incident and was purely a marketing gimmick used by the studio, a-la Blairwitch Project

Finally! I must admit I am not going to become a "Buddhist" either...I will simply be...

Thank you. Wish you the same

The subject exists without an object, because the subject is self-aware, self-luminous and has no need for objects. It is not possible to know "Why" then objects arise....because the Subject is beyond the realm of objective analysis. All this is simply an elaborate hoax to delude oneself into adhering with misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what tries to pass off as Buddhism. It is sad that Buddhists don't understand what Buddha said...they cling to words merely.

My gurus. I have one who teaches me Taiji Chuan. I have one who teaches me Siddha Yoga. I have one who has taught me specific Kriyas. And none of them have abused my trust or tried to con me. Why? Because I was very circumspect in choosing the Guru. I went with "feeling" instead of being taken in by gimmicks such as "Shaktipat" and "Transmissions" etc. If I cannot work towards my own spiritual development, I have no business embarking on that path. No one can make me "enlightened" without my being ready for it. And save one, none of my other gurus are world-famous, etc. They are perfectly happy teaching what they know to a small group of students in almost complete anonymity from the rest of the world. You are conflating two issues...one is the subject of knowledge and the other of morality. Knowledge is a spiritual thing, morality is a social thing. I chided westerners such as yourself because it is obvious you don't understand what Guru means. In your mind, there is a cultural pre-programming to consider the word "Guru" as being somehow synonymous with "Charlatan". So everytime you hear the word "Guru" your hackles are raised. For someone like myself, who is born-and-raised Indian Hindu, when I hear the word Guru I interpret it as Teacher and given that I have had some fantastic, compassionate and brilliant teachers in my life, I naturally revere the word and give respect. If I come across someone who claims to be a "Guru" but it is clear that he/she doesn't demonstrate the qualities of one (such as compassion, humility, wisdom), then I don't associate with them. I am not lured by "short-cuts to Nirvana" such as Shaktipats or transmissions, etc

If only life was so simple. I wish I had the time or patience to spell it out for you...but you won't get it...so it's pointless. If you can manage without a teacher, well all power to you. Here's a current discussion going on about one such Guru: Lessons from the Swami Nithyananda Saga The author of this article makes some very well thought through and cogent arguments about the "frailties and fallacies" of Spiritual Teachers.

Being present means witnessing the thought packets as they arise and disappear. imho, it seems like the thoughts which are discrete packets tend to trigger a chain reaction, so we travel from one thought to another to another and where the first thought might have been about a itch on your back, it might lead you to the grand canyon (via a sequence of triggers and cues). This stream of thought packets is what we call the "mind". What we usually tend to do is attach to these thoughts (thus the monkey-mind, wandering-mind, etc) and end up getting "uprooted" from our original goal (of meditation). By being aware of the fact that these thoughts are simply discrete packets, we can simply observe them and then let go of them. At this point it will become clear that we are not the mind, but something else that is underlying the mind (which is simply a stream of thoughts playing out randomly). When this realization happens, we become aware of a gap between the thoughts. This gap is empty but vividly aware/conscious and a evokes a sense of fantastic well being. I guess it might feel different to different people. To me it feels like my consciousness is being jerked from one level to another (like how the body might feel when it drops from a great height in a short interval, like in an amusement park). As this gap elongates, the sense of jerkiness also reduces. As far as the different layers/bodies goes -- we call them the pancakoshas in Yogic parlance (or the Five Sheaths). Bruce's version talks about 7 layers, but that difference is not very important, imho. The five layers are the physical, energetic, mental, intellectual and spiritual sheaths. In Yogic terms they are called the Annamaya (Food-dependent) Kosha (Sheath), the Pranamaya (Energetic) Kosha, the Manomaya (Mind) Kosha, the Vijnanamaya (intellectual) Kosha and the Anandamaya (Blissful) Kosha. These are like the layers of an onion. The outer layer is the physical (food-dependent) layer, then the energetic layer (with the meridian network), then the mental layer (with the stream of thoughts), the intellectual layer (with the rational faculties) and finally the blissful layer (when all thoughts, intellect, etc have been transcended). When meditation (dissolving), we first encounter the physical layer, then the energetic layer. After this point we encounter the mental layer and then the intellectual/emotional layer. I think the majority of our work and effort are directed at these two layers (of mental and emotional/intellectual levels).

I haven't taken any formal classes in this method but it seems like that any seated or supine meditation can be used to do dissolving. What works best for me is Shavasana (The Corpse Pose of Hatha Yoga). After doing some basic yogic postures and breathing, when I lay down in Shavasana, my mind is alert (due to the Yoga practice) and body on the threshold of relaxation. The dissolving happens first at a physical level and then at a mental level. The physical part is when the body gradually relaxes, like a slab of butter on a hot plate, releasing physical/musco-skeletal "issues". The physical release is like outer dissolving...I must admit the Ice to Water to Gas analogy doesn't really work very well for me. As the body relaxes, like the blockages releasing into the ground, then the mind aspect usually plays in. The thoughts change from a continuous stream of thoughts to discrete packets of thoughts with small gap between each thoughts to slowly flowing thought packets with large gaps. Usually the thoughts that arise are what need to be "inner dissolved". These thoughts,feelings associated with these thoughts and emotions that arise as a result thereof are those that need to be worked on.

I've read Bruce's works extensively and they are a vast ocean of wisdom. I found many things he said reflective of what I've learnt from my Taiji teacher...wrt Taiji practice. Also his books are excellent to read because of so many personal anecdotes he throws in to spice up the material. I have loosely tried to practice dissolving and it is hard. A lot of what he describes as phases in inner/outer dissolving have happened automatically to me during regular Taiji practice. But his works act as a guideline/roadmap that I turn to whenever I feel the need. Haven't really taken any of his workshops, but hopefully this year or the next, somewhere in mainland US I intend to attend one. Cheers!

Gurus are not responsible for aspirants being manipulated. The Aspirants are. A Guru is nothing other than a teacher. The whole Guru-Shishya dynamic is misunderstood and abused in the West. The relation between a Guru and Shishya is many things rolled into one. There is the Father-child relationship, the best friend relationship, the soul-mate relationship, the brotherly relationship, the Mother-child relationship... Another thing that many fail to understand or acknowledge is that Gurus are human too...they are not above human frailties. Given that they have bodies, they have human needs to. They do need to eat, sleep, defecate, etc. Similarly they do need to address basic animal drives as well, such as sexual desire, etc. As is true with any serious seeker, they can either choose to transform/use these primal drives towards cultivation or succumb to them. Classical Indian texts (such as the Puranas) refer to several sages who struggled to overcome lust, anger, etc. They were still considered highly accomplished Sages, but not perfect, because they were human. And the stories highlighted their inner struggle to transcend the primal urges/emotions/needs, etc. As a non-westerner, I find it hard to understand the antipathy of Westerners towards Teachers. Are you (as in Western seekers) so arrogant as to think that you can achieve spiritual goals without any guidance?!? It is true that we have an inner guide (Atman) which will provide genuine intuitive knowledge (Prajna), but there is a need for those who have gone before us to show us the way around potential pitfalls and dangers of certain aspects of spriritual practice. Those who have meditated will have come across inner conflicts and demons that had to be overcome. The Guru's role is to provide guidance to these seekers, in such times of need. Some might be able to overcome these phases on their own, but many do not or struggle and wander about aimlessly because they didn't have anyone to correct them or even compassionately listen to them (and understand/explain certain things).

I trained in aikido for a few years. I found the training provided lacking in "internal" stuff. I wasn't at the Yudansha level however, but I didn't find the Yudansha demonstrate any internal skills. My Sensei was and is a phenomenal individual, with the aura and presence of a benevolent Sage. He doesn't teach Aikido any more but is a Taiji Chuan student. My Taiji Teacher is also his teacher. In much of the aikido training that I underwent, there is a great emphasis on balance and lightness, but no element of internal MA, imho. The way we can activate and move Chi in Taiji Chuan is not there in Aikido -- maybe in higher levels, but after studying Aikido for 3 years I hadn't learnt any internal techniques (could be my shortcoming as a student). When I started Taiji, I started feeling Chi flow within 3 months and after three years I was able to generate significant internal flow. That said, from a MA perspective, I think learning Aikido is very good from a strategy perspective -- the maxim "When pulled Enter, when pushed Yield" is a very effective strategy to use not only in fighting but in life in general.

may I suggest that you leave Gandhi out of this (if that was who you were referring to by Ghandi-guru). He never claimed to be anyone's Guru and he was much farther progressed as far as spirituality, wisdom, compassion and humility goes than most anyone in living or dead. I do agree with your position about using disparaging epithets about anyone. I think the mods on this forum (Stigweard I believe was the one), who suggested that ad hominems be kept out of any discussion. That way the topic being discussed/debated/argued about can be focused on instead of personal traits (or lack of these thereof) of the discussants.

Brilliant! Such a poignant characterization...so simple yet so powerful! Kudos...

Or is the Coffee dependently originating because you want to drink it? Think about it. The Coffee Plant exists because there is a dependence on it for stimulation of non-selves who also dependently originate with various other things. I wonder whether it is okay to use he, she, it, who, they, them etc wrt non-selves?

And there are so many examples of Enlightened Masters living just like Pigs...

Actually it is a misunderstanding of Advaitic concepts. Jiva is simply the delusion of Self-hood as experienced while under the limiting adjunct (upadhi). This is exactly the Anatta of Buddhism. The use of term Cosmic Source is also wrong. Brahman and Atman are one and the same and non-dual. Also to Marblehead, You are simply projecting your western apathy towards a "God" onto something that is not. Brahman is not God. Brahman is simply Pure Non-dual Objectless Consciousness, that's all.

http://medhajournal.com/resident-philosoph...c-analysis.html In light of so much confusion about what Consciousness is and whether it is a phenomenon or not, here's a masterful article written by a prof of Philosophy and of Physics. A brief intro:

Very true! Because sense is in the realm of categorical frameworks. Dont take the analogy literally. Exactly! If you read the article in the OP, you will see he is saying the same thing.

Another common misunderstanding about what Atman means. Atman is not a Soul that transfers from body to body (this misunderstanding is a result of projection of Abrahamic religions onto Dharmic traditions) . Atman IS Brahman -- a non-dual Pure Consciousness.

Meditate on the gap between thoughts. No fancy techniques are needed...just some good Yoga/pranayama and lie in shavasana till it happens. It will happen and will happen in sudden jumps and each jump takes you deeper into the gap. All this Alaya etc is simply a bunch of words being retrofitted to explain something that is inexplicable. Shankaracharya's critique on Alaya Vijnana is a very useful read. He showed that Alaya Vijnana is simply an elaborate effort to try and prove the concept of Anatta, while in reality there is an Atta (or Atman). This elaborate construct of what is beyond Consciousness etc is simply more categorical framework, albeit under the false assumption that it is a "dissolver of all frameworks".

Because there is a false identification with the objects, while forgetting about the light. The light can stand on it's own without any objects. Why? Because it is so. Objects are objects only because they are in the light. Otherwise they don't exist. I understand your line of questioning, but I think they are based on the mistaken premise that the Light and Objects don't have value without each other. The objects don't have value without the light, but the light being self-existent and self-conscious (I'm not literally talking about Light here but consciousness), is perfectly happy to be it self (this is called Sat Chit Ananda of Existent Consciousness Bliss) I know what your next question might be (potentially), as in, if Consciousness is self-existent and self-conscious, then why the need for this "ignorance"? Why are the objects needed at all? Advaita's answer is that since Consciousness (Pure) cannot be categorized into a name of form, it cannot be objectively analyzed to find out the "Why". When one is stable in Objectless Consciousness, then neither the questions matter, nor any answers. Drew, please read this article, written by another experienced scholar: The Four Mahavakyas (Great Statements)

there is no discarding of the "non-Self", there is only realization of the distinction between not-self and self by stripping away all those false identifications. Even to contemplate I, first the Not-I needs to be identified, because such identification is natural in all human beings.