Apech

The agency of buddha-nature is compassion and wisdom - after buddhhood comes buddha activity which is said to be totally natural like rain falling, unforced or contrived. This in a way proves the agency of the 'non-dual'. Even if from the perspective of the enlightened being it might be different to how we can conceive of it. Or willing to do so rather than compelled (?) Nice.

Never heard of this guy before - and all sympathy for his suffering - but from what I can glean from his writings and a quick google search he has had a typical neo-advaitan 'non-dual' experience, which to me is largely emotional. While I am not really one for orthodoxy in any form there is a certain sense in which we all need guidance, a teacher and a way of putting deeply personal experiences into perspective. The trouble is of course that many of the orthodox teachers know little else than their own adopted dogma. The other substitute is deep study of various systems, seemingly contradictory statements and advice, multiple approaches and so on which give a wider view. Ultimately the teacher is your Atman anyway - but if you are lucky you'll find someone so attuned to this as to make it the same thing.

Just theoretically for a moment ... if the Atman is full consciousness or something like that ... then isn't it full agency? Then it's just a question as to what that looks like to us mortals. In non-dualist Buddhist teachings like mahamudra or lamdre they talk about the basis, path and fruit (or result). The basis is like this ... why do you practice? and where does any element of awakening come from? Answer buddha-nature - without which you would never have a reason to practice. What is the fruit of practice, the result ... buddha-nature which you realise. What is the path? Opening to buddha-nature. So the basis or cause, the path and the result are all buddha-nature. In Christian mysticism ... God (or Jesus) says 'I am am alpha and omega ... the way ...' . The alpha is the beginning, God calls, the omega is union with God, the way is living in the light of God's will. God at the beginning, God at the end, God as the way. What calls you to the way? A small voice in the stillness. Just some thoughts.

... hugs anyone?

What does illusory mean?

subject = subject + predicate (pause to reflect and object) I feel that current (on this thread) definitions of Atman (brahman) are abstract. By this I mean they objectify the Subject and then attempt to get close to it. They define it in terms of the extinction of what it is not - thought, feelings, perceptions, matter and so on. They mistake, in my opinion, the subject which is Atman for the process which is yoga (yogas citta vritti nirodha - that is 'union arises from the evaporation of mind disturbance') - which I accept as it is basic to what we are about. The Atman (breath, self) ... spirit? is all. Let's start there. the Atman could be described as an infinite continuum of consciousness, because being conscious arises because of consciousness, the Atman has no parts it is continuous and unbroken (no gaps) and there is nothing other than it (infinite). The Atman as 'self' is the ultimate subject. There is no other subject, it is as it is of itself independent of any causes or conditions. The predicate is everything that can be said about the Atman, which ultimately, because it is infinite is every possible name/form which exists, has existed, or has the potential to exist. An infinite dictionary of terms. So imagine the infinite continuum of consciousness in which there are an infinity of points of reference. Each acts as an observing self. Each self looks out at the infinity of the Atman and sees an infinite display of energy and forms. Then forgetting its own nature falls into seeing these forms as 'other than Atman' and 'other than self'. So the sky becomes mere sky, earth mere earth, rock just a rock and a tree simply a tree. Then recalling its source says I must return to the Atman, which is not the things I see but something else, something transcendent and beyond them. And looking back to the Atman I shall let these appearances dissolve in my quest for the root of my nature which will wake me up from forgetting. But another turns to that one and says 'nah. I am a tantric alchemist' ...' for me the subject = subject + predicate and the world is the the result of the agency of the self. For me the tree is a living tree and my resolve is to go through life and realise the unity of all and one in everything. So see you on the other side.'

Etymology[edit] Ātman (Atma, आत्मा, आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word which refers to "essence, breath."[web 1][web 2][9] It is derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *h₁eh₁tmṓ (a root meaning "breath" with Germanic cognates: Dutch adem, Old High German atum "breath," Modern German atmen "to breathe" and Atem "respiration, breath", Old English eþian).[web 2] Ātman, sometimes spelled without a diacritic as atman in scholarly literature,[10] means "real Self" of the individual,[note 1] "innermost essence."[11] While often translated as "soul," it is better translated as "self."[1][note 2]

I object most strongly.

Well thank you for your pronouncement but fact it is objects that have no agency - for instance ‘I throw the ball’ - I as the subject have agency while the object, the ball does not.

I am wondering if the removal of the idea of agency of the Atman is the core reason for the abstraction of the Atman ... which in turn leads to some of assertions of the non-dualist bstds.

Ooops

"I've made a few but then again too few to mention." - Sensei F. Sinatra

The steve has spoken (correctly).

My understanding is that they (the subtle body practices) are completion stage yogas ... there are different mahamudra traditions - some such as so called sutra mahamudra do not rely on tantras (controversially) while others do.

What do you mean about their motivations?

Sure, I guess that's why naldjor live in caves. On the other hand Lord Marpa was a farmer - so maybe it depends. For myself I cannot claim to be a 'high level' practitioner but a lowly plodder ... but I prefer for what it is worth, to meditate in a crowded or busy place and not an isolated gompa. Somehow I suspect that the things gained on the high mountain are usually lost when you come down into the world. So I prefer to try to develop in the midst of conditions.

Inevitably anyone I would say.

You seemed to be saying there was an alternative. Anyway not important.

My view is different to this. I view removing obstacles and so on to be one step (purification) in an alchemical (or others may say tantric) process. This process involves spirit/substance and leads to a state of being which is both illuminated and infinitely adaptive to any circumstance or environment. In other words the ability to assimilate experience and to respond appropriately is maximised. Most of this work occurs at the level of subtle body which is why it is key.

I like this answer because it reflects my current inner debate.

This is a key question which people tend to avoid. Technically there is no difference between will and consciousness. But then if Atman has agency as consciousness then it has will. Then the question is what is it willing. Most refute this kind of argument because they see consciousness as a kind of neutral abstract. There are different types of perception. Usually in Yogacara these are object based perception, imaginative perception and pure perception - pure perception sees everything as buddha-nature. Because realisation is not mental but involves the whole being. Spirit is a term in Western systems and does not really come up in dharmic systems unless you count prana of course.

He went back and changed his answer

Cheat!

Ah that dreaded word again.

Your Atman sounds very Buddhist