forestofclarity

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.

I've had an on-again, off-again relationship with martial arts. I was always drawn by the promise of fitness, self-defense, and spirituality, but for me I have found they tend to fail on all counts. There seems to be a triangle here--- the more you focus on one dimension, the others tend to suffer. So for self-defense, the best would likely be some MMA training, but there is no spirituality there. The more spiritual arts strike me as useless for other aspects. The main issue I have with MA though is the violent/aggressive mentality. I have a hard time avoiding that, and judging by my other students, so do most of them. For me, it usually shows up in how I handle conflicts in dreams.

Simple, but not necessarily easy. One of my teachers used to be a bit bemused at modern Westerners who think we can accomplish in our spare time (some even in a weekend) what it took the old masters many years in isolated retreat, despite the stress and distraction of modern living. I think there is something in the modern Western mentality that thinks we can easily achieve whatever, but it generally tends to lead to a watering down of the practice and fruit (presuming folks even get the base correct, which in IME is trickier than supposed). But I guess we'll find out--- the older generation of Western students should be about to go rainbow.

To fall again on Chan paradigms, there is what you are, and that never changes. This is the essence. What changes is how it (not that there's an "it") expresses. That is the function. So the work is not the change the essence, but the function. I would go further and say that while the essence is unchanging, the recognition of that does change, as does the depth and stability, of that recognition (which is actually at the experiential point outlined above). So it's one thing to be the Self (so to speak) and another thing to recognize or forget that you are the Self. Just like in a dream, I may recognize I'm dreaming and be free, or forget I'm dreaming and be bound by it. And this recognition comes and goes in the dream. But even when recognized, the mere recognition is not enough--- one's entire being should be reorganized around that recognition, so that one lives it moment to moment. Like in the dream, once I recognize I'm dreaming, it can be a lot of work to bring my actions in line with that recognition-- such as learning to fly or put my arm through a wall.

From the Chan point of view, it is often said that just because the sun is out it doesn't mean all of the ice is melted. Usually, there is a twofold process: 1) removing ignorance and 2) cultivating the positive expressions. The second is used to benefit sentient beings. In addition, from a Tibetan Buddhist POV, you have levels of insight. the first level is the understanding level, where you get it mentally. The second level is experiential, where you have experienced, but there is no stability. The third level is realization, which is unchanging. There is a saying that goes: From this level, people will confuse 1/2 with 3. Often what prevents the progression are mental/energetic habits, and one's capacity. At any rate, this is an ongoing debate in Buddhism, usually revolving around two axes: 1. Gradual vs sudden. The most common compromise in Chan/Zen is sudden enlightenment, gradual cultivation. But there are other schools with different combinations. 2. Easy vs. complex. In Buddhism, this comes up all the time. There is always skepticism of the orthodox school about the new schools. Many of the arguments in this thread have been leveled at the Chan/Zen school, Dzogchen, etc. I see these same points argued again and again, but often each side fails to see the other, until some realized master comes along and fuses them together.

Everyone of course thinks they are doing this, or some equivalent--- aligning with the dharma, following God's will, etc. The issue is discernment. Personally, I've found that most established spiritual paths are quite experiential. I've also found that what one experiences depends on the specific tradition one follows. I don't think it is such a stark either/or. Having said that, there are "awareness" type teachings in Daoism. ---------- Sometimes for fun, when I see some one is having issues with non-dual type teachings,, I like to insert the word "space" instead of awareness. It sort of throws everything in a new light.

I would work on connecting with a teacher. Without a teacher, one of two things is likely to happen: 1. Nothing happens, in which case you've wasted your time. 2. Something happens, in which case you will certainly need guidance. I wouldn't recommend working on your own, because you'll end up installing habits that you'll have to undo later. Just some thoughts. Good luck either way.

What is this? 😍

There's was an interesting comment made by about changing traditional ways to make it easier to do. The problem lies in discerning whether the traditional way is somehow essential to the ritual. In this case, I wonder if the traditional way of holding the stalks and taking the time to cast them in some way impacts the divination that may be lost when not done. Wonder if @Taomeow has any thoughts.

See above.

I would not recommend a set, I would recommend a program.

I've always been told that it is the state of mind when this stuff arises that matters. When you set up to meditate, a lot of things might come bubbling up. The more clinging/craving/aversion one applies, the more we're increasing/reinforcing those mental habits. But if we can relax and let them arise and dissolve, then it is considered a way to purge old karmic seeds.

It seems to me that it's all nature, just what kind of nature you want. We could set up the conditions to cultivate health and happiness or misery and illness. I wouldn't say illness and suffering is unnatural, because it appears to me animals also get ill and suffer (maybe even plants--- I tend to be pro-plant sentience, but others may disagree). Otherwise, why would I follow my will power and practice wuji/qigong/meditation rather than follow my evolutionary bodily instincts to binge on high calories foods (and to eat them all NOW rather than save some for later)?

A few to check out to get you started: https://www.immortalarts.org/ https://damomitchell.com/ https://nathanbrine.com/ I haven't checked them all out personally, but that is where I would start based on reputation.

No comments, but it is funny that when I was in high school reading the first Taoist books, it was called "8 Drunken Fairies."

Interesting question. Per some Taoist teachings, yin and yang emerge as a result of fundamental imbalance--- similarly with Buddhism.

I am not sure that it is. It appears to me that Chinese medicine is very contextual and subjective. It depends on a thorough knowledge of internal states, is very personalized, and relies on a paradigm largely rejected by materialist culture. It would be one thing if people could move smoothly between two paradigms, but generally we take one as THE truth. So what you described above--- an attempt to integrate, but then modern medicine becoming dominant and Chinese medicine slipping away, is exactly what I would expect to happen. And look at what has happened when the West encountered meditation: it ends up stripping out the essential parts and reducing it down to relaxation or a way to more efficiently work for a company.