forestofclarity

Because you've now transformed something that is always present into a state that is attained and lost.

Re: Nirvikalpa samadhi Again, I suppose it depends on the source. From Atmananda:

Here is a link to the Drg Drsya if anyone wants to look. http://archive.org/details/drgdrsyaviveka030903mbp

It depends on what you are practicing. In Buddhist practice, there are many answers depending on which system you are working with. There is light concentration, narrow concentration, broad concentration. It all depends on what tradition you work with. I advise setting aside, as much as possible, expectations about what should arise and let what arises arise.

I don't think you've practiced Zen, Exorcist. The idea of Zen put forth in this thread is very simplistic-- and there it remains, just an idea. The only way to truly know Zen is to practice Zen, to commit to the teachings.

Our time here is precious, isn't it? Especially with other people.

Empty does not mean insubstantial.

That is certainly one view of emptiness.

Me, too.

If I may ask, what is the difference between pure, objectless consciousness and nothing at all?

I know from my experience with fast noting that it will induce altered states of consciousness. Very destabilizing.

If I had to guess, you're tired and meditation just reveals that to you. Sometimes what we need is regular, good sleep.

A question for the scholars and scholar-warriors: According to traditional Taoist sources and teachers (traditional or modern), is the source of the world the same as the source of one's thoughts? Either way, can you point me to the teachings? I'm more curious as to what Taoist texts and teachers have to say than personal opinions as to this point.

It is easy to experience ignorance as an obscuration. For instance, we may see one object that looks like another, like a chair with a shirt draped over it that, in the shadows, appears to be a human being. Once we realize the truth, the raw experience doesn't change, but the realization does. That's why I bring realized masters into this. As for my path, I would hope that you leave that to me. I don't personally believe that Advaita is "flawed", only our understanding of it.

I believe that I am aware of all my thoughts. I've been looking at this over the past few days in the course of this discussion. I don't believe that thoughts can exist independent of awareness. What would an unaware thought be? Much like an unseen color or an unheard object, I suppose. Taken one step further, I don't think objects can exist outside of awareness, either, at least not in any way we can understand.

I don't think the 1st question was answered. Boy suggests that Brahman appears as Atman, but this doesn't make sense as Brahman is formless, indescribable, etc. One thing I've never been able to understand about Vedanta is the relation between Brahman and the universe. If Brahman is permanent, how then the changing world? The answer I've gotten in the past is that the world only appears to change, but it actually does not change. As for the wave in the ocean, if the wave is pure consciousness, and the ocean is made of waves, then I would in fact expect the ocean to know all the waves. Vedantins in the past have said that there are limits. Yet how could anything obscure or limit pure consciousness? And if a master is realized, and has ended ignorance, why are they still bound?

Lama Tsongkapa may be hazardous to one's ego. Guy Newland's Introduction to Emptiness was a watershed for me.

This is a very interesting article. I see the author draws not just from traditional vedanta, but also from Madhyamaka. The question arises: why is there a separate term for atman as for Brahman? And why aren't realized masters omniscient?

It can't be done. If it could, whatever it is would have caught on like wildfire.

I don't think dharma teaching is about practice over theory. Right view is, in fact, the first step on the Noble Eight Fold path. The suttas record the Buddha as suspicious of metaphysical speculations, but this has not stopped the reams of speculation that follow in not only the Abhidhamma but in Mahayana sutras and commentaries, so I don't think this is an informed criticism. I do believe that the old Greek philosophers had methods and exercises that transformed the philosopher. But what was written down was the theory portion. Plato alludes to oral teachings in some of his letters. I'm not an expert on Plato or neo-Platonism, but I would think that any Plato-based training would have to account for mind, body, and soul, and not just mental speculation.

What you do then is think of brown monkeys.

How does one practice neoplatonism?

One thing that helps me: when you find yourself defending an opinion, try to argue the other side.

I've found this in Vedanta philosophy. It appeals to common sense and generally how we view the world. For example, things that change very rapidly, like thoughts, are often considered less real than things that change slowly, like physical objects or stones. Consider dreams: they change constantly, night to night, even moment to moment. We consider waking life to be more "real" because it doesn't change as rapidly. The other side is that things that change lack an inner essence. An ice cube, for example, lacks an inner "cube essence" because it easily changes (i.e. melts).