forestofclarity

I think he's comparing them from the POV of concepts rather than non-conceptual experience. Once we get into concepts, we're already at least two steps down from the ultimate on the 5 kosha model. In addition, I find that Hindus and Buddhists are generally terrible at actually understanding what the other is saying.

Gendun Chophel, the Gelug "Mad Monk" says that no one is really a nihilist: trans Tyler Dewar (emphasis added)

The Bonpos are the ones putting all this information in the public, but they are also the ones who put warnings on all their practice manuals along the lines of "don't try this yourself" and "you need to connect to an authentic lineage to practice this." Here on the Taobums, people like to obtain and even post restricted materials --- in effect saying listen to what this teacher says about Dzogchen, but don't respect what this teacher says about keeping the teaching materials secret. In other words, we turn to a teaching for guidance and rather than listen and apply the teaching, we pick and choose according to what we already think we know. The issue is that if we are ignorant, how do we have the wisdom to pick and choose? I will bet an obscene amount of money that if anyone bothered to ask Lopon Tenzin Namdak his opinion, he would say you shouldn't learn from books. In fact, most of his materials are restricted. The reason for this, according the Garland of Views, is because people are just going to get it wrong. Connecting with a lineage is no guarantee, but at least it means you're willing to receive feedback from others to make sure you're on the right track.

Keep in mind that Dzogchen as practiced live and Dzogchen as discussed on the Taobums are not necessarily the same thing.

I don't know about that. I live in a pretty Buddhist town and I definitely get the feeling that dharma practice is in decline, having been more popular with the Boomers than the younger generations. Some of the larger Zen centers have already sold some of their holdings due to lack of support. I would expect the popularity to decline as secular meditation becomes more popular (like what happened with yoga). However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing--- there is also a strong tradition of dharma being practiced by the few, with occasional surges in popularity.

Evidently, this is from Jean Klein's the book of listening. Jean Klein was an Advaita master.

It is probably our definition of renunciation, purification, transformation, and self-liberation that are different, and that's ok. The point is, there's no one answer for all of Buddhism.

I mean in the sense that there are the paths of renunciation, purification, transformation, and self-liberation.

Not necessarily.

I think we tend to build myths of the monastic lifestyle. I've known Korean monks in the U.S. who took full time jobs to support themselves. Other monks have spent years living as homeless wanderers. Some monks have vested their lives in a sangha only to watch it collapse financially on the verge of their retirement. I've known many monks who say that they are so busy, they have little time for formal meditative practice, outside of daily chants and rituals. I've also heard from several Asian masters that Westerners have more time to study and practice given our educational and technological advantages in some regards. Keep in mind that the average lay person in the Buddha's time worked incredibly long and hard days, and had very little means to extend light into the night the way we do. Also, literacy was extremely low, so studying wasn't even an option for most. Technologically, we wield more raw human power than the ancient kings. So I think it's more about the individual. I'm sure we can also practice much, much more than we do, but we work with our circumstances.

That may be true if you ignore the entire Mahayana and Vajrayana, which constitutes about 2/3 of practicing Buddhists in the world. Renunciation is not the focus nor necessarily desirable in other vehicles.

Some would say we're "group dreaming" right now.

I don't think it is free-- just another instance of internet piracy.

Hi RT, Thanks for your summaries--- it is line with what I have learned also, which is often rare online. Your English is fine, don't worry about it. Unfortunately, I cannot read, digest and respond as quickly, but I wanted to know that your posts are appreciated. Of course, Steve's posts are always appreciated.

I have the same issue--- it is the disease of the Western educational system. For me, the interdependency of the brain and its unfindability don't do it-- -the brain has a special relationship with consciousness. Manipulating the brain manipulates consciousness in a way you don't get by manipulating the air, the heart, or our hand. It is entirely possible that all forms of consciousness depend on the brain, or that consciousness is simply a form of energy. The luminous, cognizant aspects may very well be a background function of the brain. Separating mind and matter fails for the same reason other dualities do: as Nagarjuna points out, if things are separate, they can have no relationship, and if they have a relationship, they aren't separate. So it is clear that mind and matter arise as a part of a continuum, and I think this is also supported by findings in quantum physics. But the question is how the dependency goes. Does the brain arise as a perception of consciousness, or does consciousness arise as an energy of the brain? I haven't had a teacher answer this question in a way that stops my doubts. Two answers I've received are the interdependence argument from a Zen master that Steve makes above, and the section in Buddhahood without Meditation by Dudjom Lingpa in which he tears apart the body. Other teachers have said it is a question that arises due to faulty concepts. Madhyamaka tends to tear apart all concepts, so I don't know if that's the place to look to establish an endless mindstream. Non-Buddhists like to argue that the brain depends on consciousness, so to say the brain produces consciousness is like saying a movie produces the projector, but I think this confuses epistemology with ontology.

The thing about certain forms of Buddhism is that one is not married to a particular set of views. We can take on and put down views as needed.

Buddhism is infinitely scalable to the person--- in fact, this is a part of the teachings. One of my favorite stories is the story of Suddhipanthaka, who couldn't memorize even one line of sutras. So the Buddha told him to keep in mind two words: sleep and clean, and to sweep his mind as he swept the floor. It is said that Suddhipanthaka attained enlightenment based on this simple instruction. But having said that, I wonder if the end goal is truly the same. But the end goal of Buddhism, in my mind, is not enlightenment or liberation. The end goal of the Mahayana Buddhist is also not to end up in the Void, or the Dao. The goal is to become a Buddha, dedicated to assisting infinite beings end their suffering. For me, the interesting question is whether other religions share this vision or not?

I recently picked up the book, "Self Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness" translated by John M. Reynolds. I have always loved the title and the translation. One thing he notes in his commentary is the power of titles. According to John Reynolds, a good student can pick up the nature of the work just from the title. Long after I have read a book, listened to a live teaching, or followed a practice, I typically only remember a phrase to sum it up. In some cases, even the title of a book I've never read sticks with me (the last two below), and comes drifting up from time to time. Some of my favorite titles are: Self Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness (trans. John M. Reynolds) Be as You Are (The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi translated and edited by David Godman) The Wisdom of No Escape (by Pema Chodron) The Real is Unknowable, the Knowable is Unreal (by Robert Powell) What are some teaching titles that stick with you?

I'd be interested in learning more about the science based evidence for the view that the body is in consciousness. Any resources?

I don't know. Even if your third eye opened, you would still have to go to work, shuttle the kids around, get cut off in traffic, and deal with getting old and dying.

One of the great teachers of traditional Advaita Vedanta died today. Rest in Moksha, Swami Dayananda (15 August 1930 - 23 September 2015).

Rule #1 of Prophecy: NEVER SET A DATE

There are many Taoist practices, just as there are many Buddhist practices. There are rituals, qigong, neigong, martial arts, mediation, and many other things. Taoism is wonderful, but I have found it exceedingly difficult to find a good teacher. I don't think one can say any practices are ineffective. One can say that a practice didn't work for oneself. For me, Buddhism works better, but that has more to do with me and my stuff than with Taoism.

Good question. The most direct and obvious benefit for me is an increase in energy, especially physical energy. I actually enjoy physical exercise for the first time in my life. I'm also more flexible and can do the full lotus for the first time since I was a teenager. I can stand on my head (with some initial wall assistance) for the first time ever. I also tripled my ability to retain my breath, which is useful in breathing practice. Overall, it fosters a great connection with the body. It gets the energy moving and flowing as well. The cold is a great training tool. Cold tends to lead to tension and contraction. By applying the method, you learn to embrace the cold, to stay open and relaxed in the face of your urge to contract. This also has applications to other discomforts. It also develops inner will power and strength, which is another bonus.