Apech

Hi Roger, I don't think that is exactly Advaita vedanta (others may disagree) - but I wouldn't worry about labelling how you see things anyway. It is good to study these ways of thought like Vedanta and Buddhism (and there's plenty of books some of which express the ideas in a direct way rather than long philosophical terms) to get a comparison. But the key I think is to keep formulating to yourself how you see things - and see this as a working model a bit like a scientific hypothesis - a set of ideas or concepts can never exactly reflect reality which is beyond words - but we need to keep formulating to ourselves for clarity. So it is important to be willing to challenge your own working model regularly and if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny throw it away or revise it. This keeps you open minded and also developing.

I am quite certain this is impossible. It doesn't matter about the Dalai Lama - its irrelevant to vajrayana as the DL specifically had a political role. In any case Kagyu, Nyinmapa or Sakya Buddhists don't follow him anyway. And it is also unnecessary because what no one is mentioning is that there are already teachings about guru - student relationships which should be taught before any vajrayana empowerment etc. This is the so called '50 verses' and its commentary 'Opening the door to the precious siddhis' by Tsarchen Losal Gyamtso. - written some time in the 16th century. While most of this text dwells on how you should do what your Lama says and treat him in certain respectful ways ... there is a 'safety clause' (my term) .... XXIV. The intelligent disciple will strive willingly and joyfully to obey his lama. If he is not able by his own intelligence and ability to carry out his orders, he should explain why, and his fault will thus be purified. The the commentary quotes the Ratnakuta Sutra 'If it is a question of a virtuous order, carry it out, if not don't comply with it.' Then it quotes Vagisvakirti who says 'Explain to your master that you cannot carry out his demands which are contrary to the dharma and leave his orders in abeyance.' So it is quite clear that if a lama asks you to strip off, have sex or photograph your genitals (!) - then you just politely say no - and if so moved ask him where in the dharma it says this kind of thing is appropriate, where in the sangha rules of conduct this is okeyed and how would a Buddha if he were present come to make such a request. If you discover he is committing criminal acts - then for his own sake - report him to the police.

Well I waded my way through some of that rather long and round the houses statement by Dzongsar Khyentse - and he seems to be excusing himself for not intervening after visiting Rigpa centres and seeing what went on (but presumably not the worst excesses). I like Dzongsar Khyentse and enjoy his books and films, he is clearly intelligent and articulate and makes efforts to understand westerners - while most Tibetan (Bhutanese) don't bother. It would have been better to just to say how wrong Sogyla Rinpoche's actions were and leave it at that.

Yikes. I met Sogyal Rinpoche in about 1973 when he was very young (and so was I) - luckily my contact with him finished there. He is a disgrace to himself and dharma and this just shows how the lama/guru relationship can be abused and why the standard advice to test your teacher for 12 years before accepting him is valid. I don't know how his students stayed with him so long and ended up writing this letter - one wonders why more support was not offered by other lamas and his teachers to prevent him behaving like this. He is lucky not to be in prison to be honest. Whatever path you follow or which teacher never give up your own judgement and self esteem in the hope of 'rewards' of enlightenment and so on. Be your own guide and learn your own lessons.

would involve amputation

Hidden parts of forum - tell us more.

i think that the essential difference lies in both the starting point and subsequent analysis by both systems. Vedanta (as the 'end' or summation of the vedas) has a starting point which asks what is fundamentally real - this from the point of view of the observer and the observed. In the older system of Samkhya this was ultimately expressed as purushas (plural) as pure observers and prakriti as the finest of fine substances which underlies all objective reality. Later forms of Vedanta explored this duality and attempted to resolve it as the existence of two absolutes is fundamentally irreconcilable. the most developed and sophisticated of these schools is Advaita Vedanta which resolves the observer as Atman the eternal 'self' and the observed as brahaman, which is 'one' as there is nothing other than it but 'without a second' because its 'oneness' was not the head of a series as in number 1,2,3,4 and so on. Then finally saying that the observer (Atman) and brahman are both not the same but not different - without an appeal to a third which was both and neither. All this in answer to 'what is real?' Buddhism on the other hand does not start with the question 'what is real?' but with the an analysis of experience as evidenced in the 4 Noble Truths - and then goes on to explain the apparent arising of 'things' as dependent origination which is founded on avidya - ignorance. In other words the 'real' that others are searching for is based on 'not knowing'. The consequence of this appears in Nagarjunas negation of any putative fundamental reality by dismissing all such candidates as 'conceptual' - and of phenomena of lacking any 'self' and thus svabhava - self-being. So the answer to 'what is real' is silence - in the sense that it cannot be defined or spoken. Thus non-duality in Buddhism arises form the emptiness of any proposed dualities - like observer and the observed. Not a very good or complete answer but the best I can manage after lunch

The OP seems to be confusing non-duality with oneness. I had never heard the idea that purusha is non-dual - actually prursha in the Samkhya is dual with prakriti (!). There is a difference between the advaita with brahman 'one without a second' and the madhyamaka non-dualism but this dharmawheel post does not capture it.

Ok guys and gals its time to discuss this again. I am going to put it to you energy sharers that you are not doing what you think you are. The I Ching says (and I am paraphrasing here because I haven't looked it up) - 'deep sighs on mountain tops are heard in distant valleys'. Now what is it (he/she) saying? Notice it is not talking about echoing yells - but deep sighs - deep sighs are expressing inner feeling and are not loud or directed externally but internally. So how can they be heard in distant valleys? Because the mountain and valley (lake) resonate. That is the vibration in one place sets up a similar vibration in another - and this is possible between people because they become attuned to similar ideas and thus resonate. By the way - by 'ideas' I mean the original Greek version of formed packets of energy not abstract thought. Even effects in martial arts are like this - is it called fa jin? I am not expert but all the videos I have seen the person is clearly being manipulated into throwing themselves - there is no actual transmission of energy sufficient to move a physical mass. I would say in psychic or spiritual transmissions it is the same. Technically you are being caused/allowed to discover that energy within yourself rather than something being transmitted from A to B.

Just for clarity I have dug up my original quote - which I got more or less right .... If you look at the last paragraph it describes a resonance process between I Ching lines and also says "Things with the same material force seek out one another" - 'material force' is the translators odd way of translating qi. At the bottom is the quote "Drawn out sighs on lofty heights are sure to fill distant valleys" It is from The Classic of Changes trans. Richard John Lynn. NB. relax mods its ok to copy small attributed parts of books under fair use copyright rules if not for profit.

I don't know I was speculating. Particularly about things like reflexology and theraputic massage.

I didn't say any of those things you are completely misreading me.

Thinking about this kind of thing a little more I remembered the idea that your being is like a kind of multilayer lens. So you have a physical presence, an energetic level, thought level and beyond that intent or consciousness. I think if you cultivate then you can naturally focus on layers above the usual engrossment in the physical and as you switch lens you perceive things differently. I recall at certain times I would spontaneous do things or say things not quite knowing why but that they related to other people. The first one I remember was once at my parents house I sat down at the dinner table and passed my sister a bowl of food - she was a bit flummoxed and said ‘how did you know I wanted that?’ - on another occasion I was at work at a meeting and again I sat down next to someone and said ‘how’s your mum?’ and the woman I asked went bright red and gurgled something because that very minute she was thinking about her mum who was ill but hadn’t told anyone. I’m not suggesting this is any great shakes but just a kind of natural consequence of cultivating but suggests a strong connection between people which is going on all the time.

My feeling about healing is that it may be perceived as a flow of qi - by both the healer and the subject - and in some ways it doesn't much matter whether this is an actual flow or just a perception of such. But in the end people heal themselves and healer is unlocking potentials in the subjects own body which are self healing. In fact the illness probably arises through the blockage of natural healing mechanisms - so the healer is allowing the subject to heal themselves. This seems to me the most satisfactory way of explaining things like reflexology where science cannot detect any connection between part of foot and the target part of the body or organ. There doesn't need to be a mechanical connection or nerve pathway if the treatment is simply allowing the subject to unlock their own body's own healing processes somehow. Anyway just a thought.

'jeffs' there's more than one?

It is indeed a mysterious world

Of course only make a video if you are comfortable with doing so, it would interesting - otherwise I take your word for what you are saying. What I have observed in most video examples that it is master with top student and not just anybody. I used to do Aikido and there were times when you make an attack and end up slapped down onto the mat without feeling any contact - but i couldn't tell if it was just clever movement and timing or actual force.

Thanks Starjumper have you experienced being 'thrown' by energy without physical contact in martial arts??

yes I would say the whole world resonates from place to place - so actually as you become more sensitive you pick up stuff from many 'ordinary' beings and a lot of that is not good at all. I find you go through a phase of disgust with a lot of humans but if it is internal resonance then in the end you would have to own it!!!! If it is transmitted then you don't. So this debate has significance at all levels.

Just a couple of further points from I Ching. The commentaries pair up the trigrams including Mountain (keeping still) and Lake (joyous) who are like the youngest son and youngest daughter - they are said in combination to circulate the qi. Qi as we know is the fundamental of the cosmos and not just the energy you generate in the body. There are many types of qi for instance air-qi and even wind and rain since they come from heaven (sky). So there are fundamental resonances between the different 'elements' of the cosmos. Also the I Ching says 8again a quote from memory) 'the mother crane calls out from the shadows and the baby birds respond'. The mother crane is often taken to mean the wisdom of the I Ching itself and the baby birds is us who twitter in response. the mother crane is in the shadows - meaning the speaker is hidden and our twittering is our resonance with its words and meaning.

Just to add I am not claiming to know the answers just posing the question hoping for others to respond

Yes I guess.

well I guess I mean that it is o longer a potential but something real for them

because if the transmitter is a realised being they are closer to the potential.