dwai

nope. Body is a matrix of energetic activity that appears in awareness. That’s why beyond a certain point (of realization of the fact that it IS an appearance in awareness) it is no use to “work” on it for said realization. Also associated with said realization, it becomes apparent that there is no need to develop a “light body”, any such body too is an appearance within that same awareness. The original light body, so to speak is awareness alone.

It depends on who’s reading What then is the physical realm? Does it exist apart from this “light”

What do you think it is?

Hamsa means swan in Sanskrit

Another misconception about the location of the mind is "the brain/head". The Brain doesn't contain the mind -- it is a receptor of the mind. Is the internet on your computer or is the computer a tool that lets you connect to the internet? The reason why people identify with the "head" as "Me" is that most of the sense organs are in the head. When she becomes aware of her subtle body, she will say she has spread out, beyond the body. The larger our field of access, the larger our sense of "self' grows.

You’re not messed up at all (IMHO). I don’t think the body has any awareness of its own per se. it is all driven by the mind (even the subconscious functions), and the mind borrows its ability to illuminate from consciousness/awareness. Yes after a certain point of development the body and mind are recognized as fields of activity within consciousness/awareness. wrt the example you gave, my explanation is — What someone does by speaking to their organs for example, is make an intent. That intent is what drives the change — not the organ itself.

Try this out - hold your hand up look at your palm. Are you seeing your palm or is your palm seeing you?

can anyone say “my Kidney had a realization” or my “liver had a realization” or even my “heart had a realization”? Imho, saying that the “body” realizes is an absurd proposition. Realization can only ever be in the mind. Transform into what? A puff of smoke? A flash of light? To what effect? (I know, I know, to become a fully liberated immortal who can traverse through the universe/multiverse if/as they wish). When a drop of water enters the ocean, it doesn’t lose itself — it becomes the ocean itself. It doesn’t need to remain a small independent part of the ocean.

Of course it is. I’ve been doing it for more than 20 years now But the objective needs to be clear, and the assumption of causality needs to be clarified as well — practice will not produce realization. It builds the conditions which makes realization easier. Realization happens only in/via the mind.

Why such attachment to that which is ephemeral? Corpse rots as prana leaves the body. But even prana is simply a substance that appears in awareness itself. It is also in the realm of duality. It is true that it is possible to be in a position to materialize/dematerialize a body, bilocate etc via yogic Siddhis, but they have nothing to do with realization. If you read Patanjali’s yoga sutras — he clearly calls them out as (and I’m paraphrasing) side-attractions. Are their beings who operate at a different/higher plane of existence? Sure. Doesn’t make it non-dual. Even deities can have suffering — of a different kind and at a different time scale.

Fascinating stuff Where do these dualistic impressions occur? And where do they cease? Never denied that body needs to be worked on - but only as a preparatory step for meditation. These are only opinions.

Ah the allure of becoming immortal and maintaining doership

Imagine a spider that has spun its web. And then it gets temporary amnesia that it is the spider, and it gets stuck in its own web. It stays stuck in that same web for a long time until it realizes that it is the one that had spun the web, and the web doesn't affect it in any way. The unfolding/dropping of conditioning can be akin to the spider re-discovering how to navigate the web, until it can pull it all back into itself one day. In terms of realization, there is no "other", but the appearance of a personality, veiling true nature from itself, has gathered tendencies to perpetuate this veiling, and it takes time for those tendencies to go away for most. There is no "new" realization, only a dissolution of those tendencies (called vasanas). (now don't get technically pedantic about this example -- it is simply to make a point) There are actually three, though won't technically call them schools per se -- 1. Srishti-Dristhi Vada (this is the normal person mired in maya/samsara) 2. Dristhi-srishti vada (this is the seeker who is still in the process of purification) 3. Ajata vada (this is one who is fully established in Self-realization -- all vasanas have fallen away). Realization is not like that. Rather, realization is -- "I am awareness itself, and this body-mind-personality is an appearance in me...as is the world that I perceive". Though there is something to said about the teachings that clarify this position, they are considered indirect knowledge until the realization occurs. Think of it this way -- where does the realization happen? In the mind. The mind is just a phenomenon that is reflecting pure awareness. Through the action of the four parts/faculties that make up what in English is called the "mind", it appropriates labels for itself. So it says, "I am a person, this and that is mine, and so on". It appropriates the sense of doer-ship..."I do this, I do that...and so on". It experiences the consequences of this apparent doership..."This is good (pleasant), that is bad (unpleasant)...I am happy, I am sad". It then suffers as it resists changes in the state of "clinging to the good" and "aversion to the bad". So it is only the mind that awakens, and it is only the mind that drops its tendencies. Realization gives us the knowledge that the mind is simply a process/activity that appears in True Nature (Self/Atman/Brahman/etc). So even though the mind will, in course of time, release its tendencies -- the permanent shift of perspective of recognition as True Nature never changes. Like clouds appear and disappear in the sky, so do all happenings/phenomena. Do you know what triggered the Buddhabum wars in the first place? It was my statement that Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism (and Daoism) point to the same Truth -- same realization. Why do Hindus call this "non-dual consciousness" Atman/Self? It is because there is nothing more intimate than it -- it is existence itself. Is there any such thing as "non-existence" -- can it ever/even be known? It can't. People can choose to call it whatever they like -- impersonal absolute Alaya Vijnana, Dao, Brahman, Atman -- it doesn't change the fact that this pure awareness is being itself. There is no such thing as "non-being". *and then ducking the brickbats from the daoists* There is a reason why this is not spoon-fed. Because it is a realization. It needs to arise on its own after the indirect knowledge has been assimilated and the mind can free itself from its imaginary prison.

Aw stop ripping on that poor man…I feel bad for him. He has a brilliant mind (maybe too brilliant)…I hope he’s doing okay.

Now, friends, we are NOT trying to actually start another BuddhaBum War, okay? Anyone who might feel offended by the antics should know that it's all being done in good humor.

That is no different from Form is Void and Void is Form in my mind, or Samsara is Nirvana and Nirvana is Samsara...just different labels we apply to realization and experiences. The term "illusion" used in place of "mithya" is not strictly used to say the world doesn't exist, but rather, the names and forms that we think of as the world are ephemeral (impermanent). Brahman/Self, which is ever-present, never-changing is "sat" (existence itself). It might seem that way, but it is a process of unfolding clarity. In the Vedantic worldview (Advaita Vedanta at least), there is the triumvirate of "jiva (self), Ishwara (creator), and Jagat (world)" to start with. Usually, the process is first "self is Self, which is none other than Ishwara's Self as well". Then there is the clarity of unfolding that the world is also Self. Swami Sarvapriyananda says, "the limited self expands to become the Self of everything". But that is the classical way. In the modern context, it is "self is Pure Awareness" and then "all phenomena are also made up of the same awareness". I like that too. But imho, there is no "realization" following true realization, just dropping of conditioning and increasing clarity. Some might think of it as semantics...I don't know...on another day, I might say something different

It is very common to see people besotted with "methods" and "techniques" in the spiritual path. Learn x, y, or z methods/techniques and you will get enlightened/Self-realized, or you will gain power, etc. But no method/technique has the ability to give anyone enlightenment. Enlightenment is simply the realization of One's Self-nature/True Nature. Very rare are those individuals who only practice methods/techniques and become Self-realized. Because of the way the world works, Self-realization requires someone pointing/telling us what our True Nature is. Without these pointers, it is very difficult indeed to get Self-realization. But don't consider this post as knocking methods/techniques. They certainly play a big part -- but only towards the purification of the mind. Why is the mind so important? Because it is the primary organ of knowing (yes, I called it an organ, albeit it is a subtle organ). If the mind is cluttered, scattered, or dirty, the truth cannot be seen, no matter the words that point to it. Similarly, even if the mind is pure, clear, and focused, without the words, there is usually no impetus towards Self-realization. I think of the methods as the vehicle to allow the mind to become clear and transparent, so the Self is known as it is, without the employ of phenomenal objects of knowledge. One topic that seems to be a source of much contention is that of the "levels" of realization/enlightenment. Some worthies think that if you realize your "True Nature" it is not enough, because you have to TRANSFORM completely into that True Nature (or however else one chooses to articulate this graduation process). Therein lies the biggest drawback of not having direct experiential knowledge -- because if one realizes True Nature, then it becomes very clear that there is nothing else left to transform, because every "thing", every phenomenon, is made up of that True Nature through and through. It is akin to stating that "I realize the Table is made of Wood, but this realization won't become completely REAL until the Table is fully transformed into wood!" What a preposterous idea! How can the Table become any more wood than it already is? Similarly, how can something made of True Nature become more True-Nature or Completely True-Nature? There is nothing other than True Nature -- period. P.S. For the sake of sanity, please don't make statements like, "The wood needs to be transformed back into the tree, then the seed and so on". That raises questions (at least in my mind) about your intelligence That brings me to the topic of "Rainbow Body". When I ask someone, "what is the purpose of developing a rainbow body?", pat comes the answer, "to become immortal", or perhaps, "To completely transform into True Nature". Inquire for a while, what is it that needs to transform into "True Nature"? Is there anything that is "not True Nature"? If there is already the realization that this world of names and forms is merely an appearance within True Nature, then where is the need to become "immortal" and "transform completely into True Nature"? What purpose does transforming the physical body into a flash of light serve? Where will such a being go? What would they do? Isn't that just a misunderstanding of True Nature? Who wants to be 'immortal' in that way? But that doesn't mean that transformation is not real. The transformation that is meaningful, is the dropping of behaviours and tendencies of the mind which keep veiling True Nature from the mind.

WIll most likely be Buddha Wars Z

The biggest misconception is that the Self can be “experienced”. It is really not an experience at all — rather it is a realization/recognition, followed by a permanent shift of perspective from that of a limited mind-body-personality to pure awareness. Advaita Vedanta teachers will say, “if you can experience it, it is not the Self”.

Whenever there was trouble at the dao bums forum there was liminal_luke… with his kind words and his gentle ways he always straightened out the toughest of kooks! Now, some might chalk it up to great coincidences, some others might say they were flukes. But only a few know, That made of unruffle-able feathers… Is the amazing liminal_luke. I name this ditty “The Legend of Liminal Luke”

Here's one -- TBH I've forgotten most of these discussions. Do a forum search and you'll find many.

Didn't know that. I always thought that Seth Ananda was a Kashmiri Shaivism initiate -- why would he need anything else. His teacher is quite accomplished in the KS field (iirc). That's a good question. I don't know (he was posting as SiliconValley iinm).I don't really know him personally. I think we've all done some growing up since the (in)famous Buddhabum wars

Mea Culpa (Hinduism/advaita vedanta represent yo!) Ooh.…didn’t know about that — do share some of that gossip 😜. I know lucky7strikes became a Sadhguru follower sometime later…but iirc last time I saw a post from him, he was still practicing sadhguru’s Kriyas. On a more serious note, I think sequestering our Buddha bums to their own sub-forum was the solution And a somber note on Vajrahridaya’s passing - was deeply saddened to learn about that.

You ARE that which the Mantra points towards though I think I’m missing some “apechcial” bit of information in this context.

I find that the grasping and limiting is also only superficial. The truth is ever present and shining forth once it is directly known. It is never lost (even though it might seem obscured from time to time). Couldn’t agree more. Beautifully articulated