forestofclarity

No, I thought this all along. It was a cadre of other Buddhists who believed that Advaita was inferior. Its funny because lately, I've been asking my wife: Do you think its weird that I think the no-self of Buddhism and the Self of Advaita are the same? She didn't. The some one posted this article on the internet. I'm just glad some one else was able to explain it better than me. Thanks, cosmos.

I think that is an excellent definition of consciousness. To me, consciousness is about "knowing". We don't really experience wavelengths. We experience colorful images. Some of those colorful images (scientific equipment) have certain readout that combined with specific patterns of thought (mathematics) creates an idea about wavelengths. We then add this idea to our direct perceptions, and begin to create a split of sorts.

I was reading a David Loy articlewhere he compares Advaita, Samkhya Yoga, and Buddhism. He suggests that Advaita is monistic, Samkhya dualistic, and Buddhism pluralistic. But what connects them is their emphasis on moral purification, meditation, and non-attachment.

Yes, there is a different between a tree in thought and a physical tree. But this doesn't (in my mind) mean that a thought is not a thing--- it is a different kind of thing (more subtle, more rapidly changing). I used to think that thoughts weren't valid objects at all. There was a time I was actually surprised to discover my thoughts, and how random and uncontrolled they were. Now, they just seem like a part of the landscape.

I had exactly the same feeling when I was a kid, but I didn't understand (then) the value.

It depends on what you mean by thing. If by thing, you mean something with definite form, then thoughts are things: they have a specific shape, color, tone, etc. If by thing you mean a dense, physical thing, then no.

Actually, I would suggest that we experience a subtle world of thoughts, feelings, and so forth, and a denser, gross world of so-called physical objects. But to locate the thoughts "inside" and dense objects "outside" is imposing on direct experience a split that is actually not there. Again, where is the boundary between inner and outer? Where does the one cease, and the other begin? Dense objects can give rise to subtle objects, such as when some one makes you mad. Subtle objects can impel changes to dense objects, such as thoughts/feelings lead to actions. So far, if I press into my experience, I see a continuum.

Yes, where is the boundary?

Most of the graveyard practices I heard about were meditating in charnel grounds where the bodies are left to decay. In these cases, you'd look at the bodies and realize that your body was no different.

I don't see meditation as removing oneself from the world. Rather, I see it as IMMERSING oneself in the world, CONSCIOUSLY.

Buscon, MCO and LDT practices are in fact concentration practices. I disagree with others who say to practice something else to improve your concentration--- these practices themselves can improve concentration. Dissolving practices or vipassana type practices are different. The best advice I saw on concentration practice is to imagine that you are a pioneer in the field, the first one ever. Pay close attention to your mind during practice and learn from that.

Let me take a stab, because I've been there: Re: feeling of "me-ness": you say this is a feeling. Does it come and go? Also, if it is a feeling, then it is not you because you cannot be what you experience. What experiences the feeling is not the me-ness. No-mind: the mind without form is No-mind. You should go there because it is freedom. It's like Hui Neng said: Freedom from form means non-attachment from forms in the midst of forms. Freedom from thought means having no thoughts in the midst of thought.

Reason has its limits, too: http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html

I've been carefully studying the difference between the inner and outer world as part of my practice lately. To be honest, I'm having trouble finding a dividing line between the inside and the outside if we look at our direct experience.

How can one become immortal by adding on to your own nature? If by nature, you are not immortal, how is it possible for this nature to change into one that is immortal? And if by nature, you are immortal, then how is it possible to gain what you already are?

Cow, There is room for all that and more! Of course, if outer nature were accumulated, then it would not be one's "original" nature.

I would like to get the place where I have no goals. Of course, this sounds trite, but I would like to put an end to the wanting, gaining, going, moving toward, craving, desiring, needing. Game plan: 1. Meditation, typically vipassana type concentration-investigation. 2. Outside of meditation, mindfulness coupled with investigation. 3. Exploring all things as they appear in direct experience. 4. Learning from those who I can learn from. 5. Chi kung, physical exercise, and Intu-Flow for balance.

Thanks. Yes, that blog contains my notes.

I have a book on my desk in my office called the "Unencumbered Spirit" which was written by a Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian.

Not too long ago, Susan wrote: Many of us on here took KAP 1. I'm sure many of us fell off the bandwagon and did not press with this sort of simple program for any length of time. Recently, I've added KAP back into my repetoire--- the last time I did, I had a spiritual roller coaster and this time is no different. I would challenge all the Taobums who have done KAP 1 and fell off the practice to pick it up again. For those who kept with it, I encourage you to post your experiences. The guidelines are simple: daily practice, 2x a day, at least 20 minutes. Let's see what happens. Create some data.

It sounds to me, Sloppy, that you aren't reallyletting go. The impression I get is that you want to let go to get something, to go somewhere. This isn't really letting go, this is just clinging in a different direction. You're looking for a certain state of being. Real letting go (and this is not to say that I'm a master of it by any means) seems like it would be about just letting go, and whatever happens, happens. Maybe you don't get bliss. Maybe the thoughts don't die down. This is really letting go.

As before, my experiment has done very little by way of energy sensations and quite a lot by way of spiritual development. Overall, I feel lighter and better. I would say that I feel more conscious, and I feel that a lot of blocks have dissolved or are dissolving. Some bliss here and there, but not much in the way of sensations. Overall, my practice has calmed down from more explosive spontaneous movements to quieter MCOs while I sit down. One of the dangers on the spiritual path is expectations. I suppose if you expect to go through a certain experience or set of experiences (i.e. a Gopi Krishna-like explosion through the top of the head), you will likely miss something very important (i.e. the messages of the cosmos meant for you). My KAP experiences have either preceded or ignited my natural spiritual growth. Casual? Non-casual? I don't know if I even care. Looking back, I'm about 2/3 of the way through the 3 month trial.

This is what I do: Practice, practice, practice. Along with a healthy dose of attention. Spiritual practice, in my opinion, is nothing more than self-knowledge. As we study ourselves, we begin to see how these things arise. As we see this, these things have less impact on us. Our old habits begin to dissolve. Specific for you: what would happen if you did atma vichara with the same energy that you brought to the Buddhist v. Advaita debates?

Pain and pleasure go together, like yin and yang. You can't have one without the other. If you want pleasure, you also have to learn to deal with pain.

It sounds like you've found the arrow in the chest. The question isn't, Why is there an arrow in my chest?, it is, How do I get it out?