forestofclarity

I think many Buddhists would find this controversial.

I am not an expert or a specialist in this area, so be warned. I base most of my findings on scholarly readings and teachings for Westerners. One learns from a teacher, but I personally think that is a different thing that taking the word of the teacher as reliable. I find that much of the time, according to Buddhist teachers, the teacher's words get their authority from inference. For example, if you find your teacher is right about A, B, and C, then it makes it more likely that your teacher is also right about D (in many cases, D is rebirth). I think there is a good reason the Buddha did not include scriptures as authoritative: 1) he didn't find existing scriptures helpful to achieving liberation in his case and 2) he didn't have any of his own. It wouldn't make any sense for the Buddha, or early Buddhists, to have a pro-scripture attitude. I also think this lack of a central authority is one of the keys to Buddhism's growth, but also a core weakness. You can see a wide variety of Buddhist teachings as they spread from India into East and Southeast Asia, through China, Korea, Japan and so on. If one looks at the Theravada teachings, they are very different from Japanese Zen or Tibetan Gelugpa. However, this also (in my opinion) cost Buddhism a lot by way of clarity and consistency. Advaita is different. Shankara did not abandon scriptures, rather he based his insights on them. A great deal of Shankara literature is in the form of commentary. Reading Shankara and listening to a contemporary teacher in the Dayananda lineage, or even the philosophical reconstruction of Eliot Deutsch, I get the sense of a strong consistency between the teachings. The teachings have become very sharp and clear over the course of time. However, Advaita did not expand the way Buddhism did, and even now it is far less popular in its traditional form than Buddhism in the West. This makes sense given the spirit of the different teachings. Buddhism tends to focus on emptiness and change, whereas Advaita tends to focus on what doesn't change. Accordingly, what would be the ultimate ground of Buddhist authority? Yet for Advaita, the notion of unchanging truths is a part of the methodology. Now, in the schools of Buddhism I am most familiar with, Theravada and Zen, the scriptures are expressly NOT considered to be infallible. In fact, the Theravada teachers and monks I learned from spent a great deal of time on this issue, and Zen takes a different approach altogether. Nor have I not encountered scriptural infallibility in other Buddhist teachings I have come across (except people in internet forums), but rather the sources I am most familiar with tend to uphold such writings on the ground of inference. Dharmakirti doesn't, as far as I know. Steve and 9th may very well have a different experience. I would honestly be curious to hear what their teachers have told them.

I didn't mean to make a controversial point: in Buddhist epistemology, it is often (but not always, which I why I used the word "tend") a given that the two pramanas of Buddhism is perception and direct inference, with the allowance of reliable testimony (which I noted). Here are a variety of sources for further exploration: Wikipedia RigpaWiki Reugg Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism Klein/Wangyal Gombrich Murti Mookerjee

If science was as fundamentally flawed as claimed in this post, then none of our technology would work. But it does work --- sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. Some of it works better than others. Military research funds a lot of science. But if science was producing bunk, it wouldn't produce atom bombs, M-4s, bomb resistant vehicles, night vision goggles and (ironically) the internet. The fact that science focuses on producing profitable technology doesn't mean that the science doesn't work. Rather, science is a value neutral method. We may not like how or where the method is applied, but it works. Sometimes it is used for purposes we consider good, such as reducing infant mortality rate and increasing life expectancy. Other times, it is used for purposes we consider bad, such as the Cultural Revolution or environmental devastation. But the fact that science has the power to improve or destroy on such a scale is a testament to its effectiveness.

Science, as a methodology, doesn't require one to believe that one is somehow separate from the universe. In fact, laboratory conditions are typically designed with this in mind to minimize the impact any specific scientist has on the experiment. The suggestions here is that somehow science isn't a valid method of knowledge because it isn't perfect or complete. I would argue that ANY method of knowledge isn't perfect or complete. The sum total knowledge possible is probably infinite, so any knowledge, compared to infinity, will be found lacking. Does science have all the answers? Of course not. Does this mean that the answers it does have are invalid? No way.

Awareness. Because without that, you don't have anything.

There is a difference between reverence and valid means of knowledge. The historical Buddha allegedly himself rejected tradition and scripture as a source of authority in the Kalamas Sutta. Vedantins will often consider the Vedas to be self-authenticating. However, when a Vedantin encounters a Buddhist, they will not necessarily appeal to the authority of Scripture. However, Advaita Vedanta has also developed an intense method of investigation that will reveal its truths to those who apply them, as has Buddhism.

Or perhaps a different set of Buddhists.

Given the forum, I think an Advaitin would point to the truth as that which does not change, or that which is never negated and replaced --- sat. Most Indian schools have what they call pramanas, or means of knowledge. They typically get down to three basic divisions: 1) direct/sensory experience 2) logic/inference 3) testimony of others/evidence from Scripture The main difference with Buddhism is that Buddhists tend to reject Scriptural authority, although they often allow for the testimony of Buddhist sages. Valid knowledge would be justified through the pramanas: knowledge that is confirmed by experience, logic, and the testimony of others / Scripture. So then how do we justify the pramanas? The appeal is usually pragmatic: the pramanas work in experience.

I wonder about the role of feelings in investigation. I went past a protestor the other day who was --- with very strong feeling --- screaming about Muslims invading the country and how ungodly everything was. As I walked past, the intensity of his emotion grew until his voice pinched off into a squeak. He reminded me of the al Qaeda videos I encountered in Iraq. In one video, a masked Muslim screamed "God is great" while slowly, over 20-30 minutes, sawing the head off of a 12-year old child. In both these cases, there is strong, even intense feeling. What makes the feeling and intuitions of a fundamentalist wrong, and the intuitions or feelings of the sages right? One of set of feelings is extremely harsh, and the other extremely loving. Yet we say the one is truth and the other delusion, even though they share a common basis: intense feeling. Even mystics with intense feelings of love reach very different conclusions: Christians tend to use this as a validation for Christian beliefs, Buddhists for Buddhist beliefs, etc. Consider also that many people feel separate from the world. Why is the feeling of separation invalid, but feelings of oneness justified? I would argue that it has nothing to do with the feelings themselves--- there is no mark of truth in any feeling. Rather, feelings of oneness are justified due to modes of knowledge--- direct perception, logic/inference, etc. that show us there is no separation.

As a non-dualists, I am not a fan of reductionism. Whether we say we are just a soul, or just a brain, it is reductionism all the same. Let's take the brain. The brain doesn't exist on it's own. It is a part of the body, the body is a part of the earth, and the earth is a part of the universe. Where does the body end and the brain begin? And what is the brain, anyway? It is not a set of atoms, because the atoms constantly change. It cannot be a set of patterns, because the patterns are constantly changing. Nor can we say the brain isn't, because we crack open heads and there it is, or we hook the head up to an EEG and detect strong correlations between brain activity and thoughts. As for the brain-mind connection, the brain influences the mind. Chemicals which change the brain cause different subjective mental experiences. Brain trauma limits what the mind can experience in terms of memory, speech, and facial recognition. Yet the mind also influences the brain, literally rewiring it over time.

If you throw out the unconscious mind, unfortunately, you also toss out memory and object recognition. So you won't be able to move, speak, or do anything other than witness a bizarre flurry of sensations.

Notice that Rupert Sheldrake distinguishes between science as a methodology and materialism as a system of beliefs. I think there is a lot of confusion here. Science is a methodology. As a methodology, it works. Science has been able to do what no religion, philosophy, or other methodology has been able to do: change the entire world in a relatively short period of time. Anyone who contends that science as a method is somehow fundamentally flawed or mistaken is required to hold onto faith in the face of overwhelming evidence, or in other words, delusion. But materialism as a system of beliefs is bound to fail. Because science is constantly learning new material, and modifying accordingly. Beliefs suffer from a lack of flexibility. Materialism, in my mind, has been outdated by quantum physics which suggests that there are no discrete, independent particles the way it is commonly thought. Neurologists report that people prefer to "feel" their way to conclusions because it is faster and efficient than using reason and evidence, which has evolutionary advantages.

The first question that occurs to me is what is oneness? Is it the presence of a specific feeling, or the absence of the feeling of separation? The second question is, what does separation feel like? Is it validated by experience? For me, there is a type of experience of "mystical oneness" that is a positive experience. I do not think that this experience can be maintained, since it is a positive state and would require some type of "freezing" of consciousness. I don't know if there is a reliable way of producing this type of "oneness." However, if the feeling of oneness is the absence of the feeling of separation, then this is a different story. Spiritual traditions give many ways to free one of the illusion of separation: critical thinking, examining experience, meditating, asking deeply probing questions. As far as I can tell, there is no short cut. Nor would I expect there to be: neurologists tell us that our way of seeing the world--- me as a separate self--- is based on how the brain has become wired over time. To undo this requires some work. I find that the feeling of separation tends to fall away when I go to sleep and when I have dreams. Exploring the waking, dream, and deep sleep state is a powerful and ancient method of challenging the belief of a limited self. Another method is to closely examine the waking state. I have found that the feeling of separation is just that: a feeling. But the feeling doesn't actually create any separation. In fact, it is imposed on a unitive field of experience.

I think it's easy to "spiritualize" one's desires so that they appear to be higher, greater, or better than ordinary desires. Calvinists did this with earning wealth. In traditional Christianity, poverty was considered a great virtue. Calvinists essentially turned this on its head. Wealth, they taught, was a mark that you were one of God's elect. So to be rich was actually a sign of high spiritual favor. I think one can rationalize any action as spiritual. In some Eastern traditions, the defining mark of enlightenment is the mark of freedom. The question isn't whether one is a success, whether one has an ego or not, or whether one has achieved a thoughtless state. The question is whether one can be free: with thoughts or without; with ego or without; with success or without. The reason for this is simple: conditions are constantly changing. If we tie our happiness to conditions, then our happiness will come and go. If we can find happiness independent of conditions, that is true happiness.

I have serious reservations about the advice provided by Mak Jo Si. I say this as someone who has watched a lot of zombie movies. The dangerous part about zombies is NOT their bite. It's their LARGE numbers. Zombies typically attack in large groups, which would seriously limit the effectiveness of his attack and "double the order." Also, even though they are loud, slow, and clumsy, they sometimes appear RIGHT BEHIND YOU which would make it hard to use a cold steel chopper machete. Which makes me wonder: it this zombie disinformation?

I don't agree with this. I don't think jnana yoga requires a high degree of intelligence if it is unfolded by a good teacher. The examples are well known and the techniques are not hard. If one can understand the difference between a rope mistaken for a snake, or a pot and clay, then that is enough. For example, one common technique is watching objects come and go, but seeing that you do not come and go. I think a middle school level intelligence could handle that.

A lot of people correlate self-enquiry with Ramana Maharshi, but truthfully self-enquiry had been around for centuries before him. For instance, Nisargadatta's teacher, Siddharameshwar Maharaj, took a different approach--- his "bird's eye" enquiry went through the various bodies or koshas--- which is one of many prakriyas available. Another which traced back to the Mandukya Upanishad uses the four states: waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and turiya. There is actually a whole body of techniques available.

A lot of teachers also say that it is not necessarily about one or the other, but that all can be useful.

I have a few thoughts. First, what detaches or immerses into the world? How does detachment/immersion work? Second, if the transcendent is separate from the world, it would be impossible to attain because there is no joining or point of contact between the two. Yet if the transcendent is no different from the world, what is the point in detaching at all?

Personally, I don't think that Kundalini is well-defined. I find definitions ranging from the ascent of a specific energy up the spine to connect with the crown to a wide range of mystical experiences. I think this is in part due to the high value placed on Kundalini awakening, such that people seek to interpret their own experiences as a sign of Kundalini awakening. I suppose my question for Hundun is: as this is an area you've devoted considerable time and energy into over the years, what do you see as the defining and commonly held characteristics of Kundalini awakening?

Oneironaut, I recently picked up this course at my local used book shop: Dream Yoga by Andrew Holecek It's pretty good so far, but I've only made it through Disk 2. He combined dream yoga with modern techniques, and he's been trained in both. He says in some ways, the Western techniques he learned are better than the Eastern ones. However, most Western lucid dreaming techniques are very similar. I have not seen much difference over the years. I have found them to be effective. A lot of Tibetan and Indian yoga based teachings are very cultural. In other words, they use symbols and images that are very charged in the culture of their origin, but may not have the same impact on people from other cultures, unless one has internalized the culture on an unconscious level. I would imagine that the same would go for Taoist techniques. So finding a Taoist technique may not help you unless you are already deeply steeped in Taoist teaching/practice.

I don't really see the difference between astral travel and lucid dreaming, although this may come from the fact that I've never successfully astrally traveled but I have had lucid dreams. However, the reports of others regarding astral travel match what I experience with dreams. I DO find that there is tremendous value in cultivating awareness in dreams. Not in order to fly around and indulge in fantasies, but because there is value in cultivating awareness in all states, and one's study of the dream/sleep state tends to loosen the attachments and sufferings in the waking state.

I've done some further study in Advaita and can say that Shankara did not, in fact, refute Buddhism. According to Michael Comans, by Shankara's time, Buddhism was pretty much on it's way out. Shankara was more determined to refute the Mimamsa school which was dominate in his day. So it makes sense that Shankara's view of Buddhism was partial and limited at best given the lack of available Buddhists to set forth their position. And that also explains why no Buddhists pointed out Shankara's shortcomings. Looking back to Gaudapada, it appears he had a lot in common with the Buddhists of his day, at least as their critiques apply to the world of things. And it also appears that Gaudapada agreed in large part with the Buddhists, although there are crucial disagreements. The Dayananda school describes Anvaya and Vyatireka like this: When this arises, that arises. When this does not arise, that does not arise. This sounds familiar to the Buddhists, and in fact this is one way the Buddha describes dependent origination in the Suttas. But where Buddhists use this to establish thoroughgoing interdependence, Advaitins use it to establish dependence on awareness. However, for the Advaitin, awareness illuminates objects, but is actually an object itself.

I think that is an error. I say this as someone who felt the same way, and who still does from time to time. We CANNOT see the end of the path. If we ALREADY knew the truth, then what use would there be for a path? And if we were so smart on our own, why haven't we found what we are looking for? Richard Rose once said that the truth is unknown, so you cannot look for it. The best you can do is back away from untruth. Just thinking about it: we cannot know the future. We can only try to simulate it. How? By using our past experiences. But isn't this crazy? If we are in search mode, it means that everything that has happened so far has failed to bring us fulfillment. Why then do we use these past failures to predict that things will be different in the future?