forestofclarity

This shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of "absolute awareness" in my mind. The sort of awareness talked about doesn't have form, boundaries, or limits.

It is important to understand that non-duality has many meanings and expressions, according to not only the tradition but the understanding of the teacher. For instance, it could be argued that physical materialists are non-dualistic in that everything reduces to matter. But there is also non-reductionistic non-dualism, and Buddhist type non-dualism which points to "beyond extremes" rather than some sort of monism. Generalizations of course have their place, but often they tend to be broader than the data points should allow. That's not necessarily true-- different versions have "creation stories," such as recorded in Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds.

I don't think people mean the same thing when they say "mind" or "awareness."

I know exactly how deluded everyone is. The more they disagree with me, the more deluded they are.

How do you know? Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

To evaluate all paths, one needs to be a Buddha or Dr. Strange:

It is a balance: too many concepts and people get mired in thought; not enough and people lack direction. I always struggled with Zen, which seemed to assume that one could cease conceptualizing just as one can choose to no longer wear red clothing. Tibetan Buddhism often has the opposite problem. What do you mean? It is a start, but certainly not an end in my mind. Well, they do, but writings are only part of the story. A lot of the tradition is oral. The writings usually provide a framework or the bones of the teaching. But the oral teachings keep it alive and fresh. In addition, there are different teachings for people at different levels.

Non-conceptuality is a concept, so see you've reified it, and in so doing have missed the vital point. As stated in the Mulamadhyamakakaria: And let us not forget the Dharani of Entering into Nonconceptuality: Yes, that was a joke.

For me, it strikes me as a bit of hubris. Classically, many people left their homes and life and practiced full time for many, many years, often enduring incredible hardships. To think that in the modern day, with the internet and far less effort, people have met and exceeded the realization of Ramana Maharshi, Shakarcharya, Swami Vivekananda, etc. strikes me as hollow and in bad faith. If that were even partially so, then certainly their posts would be modern spiritual classics, as they exceed the scriptures and commentary of an entire tradition. And do we think if these people were alive today, they'd be spending all their time compiling quotes and arguing on the Daobums? There are a few issues at play. One is the use of similar terms, but the meaning changes and becomes more refined over time as one progresses. Accordingly, the Self may be initially presented in a gross way, and that concept is often refined until it is exhausted. But some one can easily take initial or intermediate teachings on the Self and mistake them for final realization. The term I have heard for this is mistaking the tail of a snake for the dragon. The other issue is that teachings, especially written ones, take the form of concepts. A lot of people like to dismiss any teaching as "too conceptual," comparing any conceptual teaching to (an often imaginary) non-conceptual realization. Any statement can be deconstructed in this manner, leaving only an ambiguous silence that can mean anything. For these and other reasons, it becomes indispensable to have a teacher more realized than oneself as a guide (unless you are, say, a lineage starting spiritual genius), which is what every tradition says.

I don't think either actually worked in a Vedantic tradition, however, or had their "realization" confirmed by a lineage master (in either tradition as far as I know).

I've always wondered about the interaction of plants and human consciousness. Certain mind altering plants, like cannabis and mushrooms, seem to exert an effect or control over many people not unlike spiritual possession. For instance, plenty of people who smoke cannabis also wear a lot of hemp, have cannabis T shirts, posters, etc. There is an entire cannabis culture. I enjoy a good whiskey, but I would never have whiskey shirts, posters, hats, attend whiskey musical conferences, etc.

From a certain Buddhist perspective, reification would include any "is" "this" or "that." Not that such reifications are not helpful at a certain point, but the Buddhist path is in my opinion one of radical non-grasping from the start. A monk asked, ‘Master, why do you say that mind is Buddha?’ Mazu said, ‘To stop babies from crying.’ The monk said, ‘What do you say when they stop crying?’ Mazu said, ‘No mind, no Buddha.’ The monk asked, ‘Without using either of these teachings, how would you instruct someone?’ Mazu said, ‘I would say to him that it’s not a thing.’ The monk asked, ‘If suddenly someone who was in the midst of it came to you, then what would you do?’ Mazu said, ‘I would teach him to experience the great way.’

Of course, many also reify clarity into a self. It can be a tricky balance, often requiring a lot of teacher input.

After a long hiatus, I have been considering taking up qigong again. As it turns out, B.K. Frantzis has moved into my area. His center is offering ongoing classes with senior instructors. Has anyone worked with B.K. Frantzis or one of his instructors long term? Thoughts? I am primarily looking for qigong work to supplement my meditation/dream yoga practices.

Try to insert a practice session when. You get up. Then if you can, another after digesting supper. I get work time for the gym, so that helps. I have lost most of my worldly and spiritual ambition though, so probably don’t listen to me.

True. Scott Adams (yes, the one from Dilbert) came onto Sam Harris' podcast to discuss Trump (which he was very pro) and made a very interesting observation. People liked Trump not because he told the truth, but told a story that they felt was true, i.e. "emotional truths." This has really opened my eyes in many ways--- truth is now arbitrated by feeling. You can see this in spiritual teachings where folks don't do practices, they just adopt "what resonates."

It is an interesting development. In ancient India, there was the idea of the pramana, or means of valid knowledge. If two schools were going to engage, they would have to find common pramanas. For example, Buddhism accepted direct perception, inference and verbal testimony, but not scripture such as the Vedas. So when a Vedantin debated a Buddhist, they would restrict themselves to those pramanas, and save the Vedic interpretation for other Vedantins. These days, we have no common pramanas. I am not surprised, since the rejection of "facts" and "experise" was clearly seen with the post-modernist, post-structuralist push in academia. In addition, tolerance for any discomfort has fallen to an unusual low, and new media have arisen allowing us to build little worlds unto ourselves. People often treat disagreements like actual blows, which puts me in a strange position as a habitual disagree-er. Strange times.

Might also want to check this out:

From time to time, I like to vary my learning up by learning about Advaita. Usually these days, this means listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda. One thing that has come up again that doesn't make sense to me is the idea of chidabhasa, reflected consciousness. The way it is described by Swami S is fairly in line with how it is presented by Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Dayandanda, and others. Basically, the idea is that the subtler part of the mind somehow "reflect" the universal consciousness. Swami S usually related the chidabhasa to "the awareness which we feel right now." The analogy is typically used on the single sun reflected in many pots of water. To me, this doesn't really make sense for at least a few reasons: we are using physical objects to stand in for a non-physical, non-object (a common issue); 2) it implies that our present awareness is somehow illusory; and 3) it would mean that our awareness somehow "changes" from what it presently is to something else later on. Thoughts? For some one interested but doesn't know what I am referring to, here is a fast outline. He talks about chidabhasa around the 6:25 mark.

The second video posits that the awareness that nondualists are telling their people to focus on is the chidabhasa and not the atman. However, I know Swami S and Rupert had a direct conversation, so I am going to review that at some point before further analysis.

Interesting editing of Swamis explanations: Also interestingly, when juxtaposed with Rupert Spira, there is an accusation that non tradittional nondualists may be focusing on the wrong thing:

A condensed presentation of Shankara's Advaita presentation: Even more condensed version---

Most Buddhist teachers teach that virtuous conduct is not sufficient. The mother of all buddhas is prajna or wisdom.

From a Buddhist POV, the emphasis is on renunciation no matter what one's outer role is. One can be a wandering begger full of clinging, or one can be a householder without. Atmananda Krishna Menon would be a good example in the non-Buddhist world. I do find that aging, despite its flaws, is very nice in this area. Getting older and knowing the ephemeral nature of things directly has been very beneficial. Is a single glimpse of one's nature sufficient to undo all the binding vasanas and samskaras? There was a nice phrase I came across recently that keep reverberating in my mind: Like an ice cube which has been dropped into an ocean, it is melting and becoming the ocean itself.

Sure. Let's take a recurring dream pattern for me--- the many vs. the few. I am alone, or with a few other people facing an opposing group of some sort--- it can be a group of criminals, aliens, zombies, a Nazi/fascist government, whatever. My old habits, especially when I was a kid, would be to run and hide. When I take up a martial art, there is less running and hiding. As I practice more, and it steeps into my mind/body, the practices start to show up in dreams. Maybe I'll fight one or two of the "enemies." Over time, as I continue to do MA, I eventually stop running and fight, sometimes an entire group. It can get so intense that I will wake myself up. Now in other circumstances, when I'm working on bodhicitta or compassion, the whole tenor of the dream changes. The opposing group is often an apparent enemy, but I don't see them as a threat. The threat level is usually tied directly to my resistance. If I am afraid or resisting them in some way, they usually become scary and violent. But if I am more open and accepting, they tend to become either friendly or they don't engage at all. So usually my dreams manifest in some way according to the habits I am building during the day.