Apech

What agency, if any, do you attribute to Atman? (anyone can answer) Thank you.

Technically speaking realisations/awakenings are not experiences since the English word means 'tested out' - as in we experience heat and cold which are environmental conditions, we might experience mental states because we have separated our 'selves' from our minds - which is part of the problem anyway. Experiences are dualistic therefore.

- D. Warwick Zen master.

Bindi referred to non-dual supremacists and I was just pointing out that such a position, should someone uphold it, would be dualist, because that person would be putting 'non-dualism' above other things.

'supremacy'

Any posited non-dual supremacy would in actuality be a duality.

I think we'll be the judge of that

A 1400-year-old Ginkgo tree found within the walls of the Gu Guanyin Buddhist Temple, in the Zhongnan Mountains region of China. Photo by Han Fei

The two systems you compare here, express the realisation in different ways - Self or non-self, but these are conceptualisations of something non-conceptual or beyond words. the Buddhist quote says 'we find ourselves enjoying' etc. after having said the sense of self disappears! So who is finding themselves enjoying? We could go round and round in circles with these terms forever, thus proving that what is being pointed to is beyond words anyway The granddaddy of all dharmic thought, Samkhya was dualistic as it resolves reality to two - purushas (selves) and prakriti (universal substance) - and it could be said that much of what follows in yoga philosophy, advaita, Buddhism and so on are ways of resolving that dualism (or sometimes just affirming it). Philosophical thought and analysis is necessary to progress - but it has numerous traps which actually can become obstacles to progress if we are not very careful. Especially if the goal is conceptualised as being some kind of static endpoint. The extinguishing of the self, or sense of the self as 'manas' and also what exactly the status of the alaya-consciousness is, are almost speculative debates, especially as the sense of self gets caught up with the moral sense of for instance 'being selfish is bad/being selfless is good' and so on. So our ego in a vain attempt to perfect itself and become a shining perfect ego is slightly obsessive about these topics - because of shame and conscience. This gets mixed into objective thought about the nature of mind and reality and adds to the disturbing nature of mental content. I am not saying we should not try to improve ourselves by good ethical conduct and kindness etc. - actually these will help gather merit, the vital energy needed for spiritual work and will reduce the chaotic component in our lives which will enable us to concentrate on real work. Anyway I'll stop rambling.

Froggy, Swimming? Fishing? Are you serious. Here’s me slaving at three jobs in the desert just to send money to you. It was for shoes and school books for the little spawn - not a new lily pad! I feel used. Oh Froggy you had your fun, you broke my heart in pieces … and all the while I think of you standing there, the sun glinting on your slimey skin, and I knew you were the one! I would slither back to you if I only could. But then you’d be having your way with a lady frog. Curse you Froggy for making me love you. my heart bleeds, Scorpiona Stingetti.

The litmus test which has always worked for me is to ask - would I want to be a member of a forum with standards so low they would allow me to become a member?

Dear Scorp, Just a note to let you know that me and the spawn are doing well. Last year we moved to a new pond and have our own lily pad. Unfortunately old uncle Toad croaked last month, we buried him under the willow which was a very sad day - but hey, fond memories last for ever! Apart from that I just carry on. Finding some time for fly fishing and the daily swim keeps me fit and healthy. Yours in love, Froggy.

Very Hobbesian.

Thanks. Belatedly I would be in favour of letting people back if they agree to stick to board guidelines. As a soft lefty and a cultivator I have a basic belief in the divine essence/buddha nature in everyone and that even people who hold conflicting views on politics or whatever are redeemable. It seems to me that the basis of this place is that we believe in the 'great work' and our 'discussions on the way' are here to help people and not to label them or condemn them for eternity. While banning is a useful tool for cooling down the board or for cleaning it up periodically - but that is it. So ... anyway ... can't wait to chat to the sock puppets.

Hello, I've read quite a bit of this thread but not all of it - so if I repeat some point already made then sorry for that. I think that systems, practices, religions - whatever you like to call them - vary in their approach and can be dualistic, monist, non-dual etc. in the way they express what the 'work' is. I would not discount any valid system because it presents as dualistic or non-dualistic etc. as long as it develops a consistent set of praxes which lead the practitioner toward first; stages of realisation and clarity and then to immortality. I think they necessarily occur in this order because it is about first seeing the 'truth' and then embodying the 'truth'. Although the work in some systems may be more explicitly aligned toward the second goal even in the early stages - while others almost ignore it until later. This can be confusing as it can mistakenly draw people into the view that the second stage is thought invalid. Specifically I think one thing that is often lost is that 'non-dual' is not the same as 'monist'. To put it simply if there is 'me' and 'IT' - then monism says there is only 'IT' and 'me' must be dissolved into 'IT'. However this can often be a presentational issue - as when entering into this system one is taught more subtle teachings which deal with this apparent negation of self. Dualism can say that both 'me' and 'IT' can coexist eternally side by side. While 'non-dual' says that the essence of 'me' and the essence of 'IT' are not different, while 'me' is not the same as 'IT'. This is a little hard to grasp as it is based in a non-conceptual awareness of what happens when the awareness in 'me' encounters the awareness in 'IT' and recognises itself in the other. What must not happen is the extinction of 'me' in 'IT' as this is called the second death, and to be avoided if the spiritual alchemical work is to be complete. So monism is essentially faulty but can be allowed for as mentioned above. Avoiding the second death is not in the negation of self but more the completion of self - in other words the joining of parts, the purification, the circulation of energy and the integration of a whole being, the work for which is done at the subtle energy body level. Just my thoughts of course.

What are we arguing about? Can I join in?

I object to the table as well - we don't need extra furniture in here.

never heard of that before - usually people sit as in the photo posted above but with the chin a bit more gently slightly tucked in to flex the cervical vertebrae.

Wait ... wot? Why?

I think you are a little confused - but I have said my piece so that is that.

Cultivating stillness is essential for developing qi awareness and levels. Small adjustments in posture to balance muscle tension etc. are ok but otherwise the posture should be maintained for the duration of the practice. This is not about ideas oppressing the body but about subtle alignment. It's basic.

I was taught that if you are meditating for qi development then apart from micro adjustments you should not move. If the pain becomes unbearable then stop, get up and walk around for a while till it is normalised then restart. If it is Buddhist meditation such as shamatha then it doesn't matter so much you can move and change posture provided you stay relaxed and continue the practice.

Generally speaking I take the view that attributing the skills people had in those days to work stone to mechanical devices and so on just devalues them. I think we can take it as given that cultures that worked stone over generations developed skills that are now forgotten and seem miraculous - there is no need to think in terms of modern tools just because we can't explain everything they did.