forestofclarity

The Kybalion provides a nice theoretical framework for us Westerners, but lacks somewhat in practice. The Principle of Mentalism is a special key that opens a lot of understanding. From a Western philosophical perspective, this is expounded well by George Berkeley in his Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous.

Because detachment often brings with it flavors of apathy, a push away from, a standing apart, disconnection, unconcerned, withdrawing. Some people may take it as an invitation to shut down emotions, repress feelings, and so forth. It is a movement away from (de-tachment). Non-attachment would mean opening, allowing, flowing but not stopping, aware but not clinging, engaged but not craving.

Does it make a difference if you follow, or should you let the move actually activate the motion?

Dwai, For you: Compare: Sri Atmandanda with: Thanissaro Bhikkhu I think you will enjoy this!

Non-attachment and detachment are not the same thing. I have a feeling you mean non-attachment, rather than detachment. Also, attachment takes place in the present. Living in the now doesn't change that.

Other. To realize the Tao.

The old saw "When the student is ready, the teacher appears" tends to be quite true. However, many people do not seem to be prepared for the form in which the teacher appears. Just because one does not feel that one is a wise sage or a Buddha does not mean that we are not wise sages and Buddhas, at least to some of the people some of the time. The Tao is wiley and crafty, using us sometimes in spite of ourselves!

I like doing freeform practice. I learned it from Sifu Wong Kiew Kit and Santiago (e.g. Vajrasattva). I would enjoy hearing more about it. Sifu Wong teaches that beginners should do more form practice, then switching to free form. Over time, the balance shifts. Free form seems to encapsulate some of the deeper teachings of Taoism and Buddhism.

GIH, What you say is partly true, but I think you are seeing only part of the picture. The Buddha himself said as much as you--- that the dharma is for practice, not to carry about like a raft on your head. And once you reach the other shore, even the dharma should be discarded. But nevertheless, neither you nor I know what anyone needs in this very moment on their path to awakening. We tend to believe that people need this, people need that--- if we can really see the truth of the situation, we would realize that people get exactly what they need. Some need to clutch, some to let go. Some need to suffer, some to be free. It is the beauty of lila. TTC Chapter 2: When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly. When people see some things as good, other things become bad. Being and non-being create each other. Difficult and easy support each other. Long and short define each other. High and low depend on each other. Before and after follow each other. Therefore the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything. Things arise and she lets them come; things disappear and she lets them go. She has but doesn't possess, acts but doesn't expect. When her work is done, she forgets it. That is why it lasts forever.

The differences are the ones you make. In a lot of Zen literature, they talk about seeing the Tao, realizing the Tao, and so on. Of course, we like to make differences, and often apply labels. This is better, faster, more powerful, and so on. But it is all very ridiculous!

There are no properties and attributes apart from consciousness. You still have not told me where consciousness ends, and the so-called object begins. Also, no one has described to me the redness of red, or the soundless of a bird's chirp. I could easily say that objects cannot be defined, they simply are. Obviously, objects are not consciousness, for how do we see them? Obviously, objects not separate from consciousness, since objects depend on it. Either way, you fall into error. If you say consciousness is, what are you saying? Is there consciousness that is not? Is consciousness more in an objectless state and less in a state with objects? If so, then Pure Consciousness would have a beginning (the end of objects arising) and an end (the resumption of objects). Then, by your definition, it would be phenomenon. I apologize for being unable to formulate a definition of objects or consciousness, but as you can see, I find all definitions flawed.

Yes. You can do a simple experiment yourself, if you want to. Simply listen to a sound over and over again. If your mind is clear and concentrated, you will notice that following the bare sound, there is a mental arising, a name, a label, a recognition. If you repeat this often enough, the sound will arise without the label. Sometimes, the wrong label may apply. Sometimes no label applies. In Buddhism, this is the skhanda of perception. When I was a little kid, I used to say a word over and over again until it lost its meaning. Same trick.

If you suffer from a philosophical disease, then you may need a philosophical medicine. Philosophical debate can help loosen mind based attachments that prevent us from seeing the truth.

You can create a rift, but it is an illusory one that falls away when you investigate closely enough. Creating rifts is what dualistic consciousness is all about: you are there, I am here; this is mine, that is yours. The whole trouble is confusing these rifts with reality, and believing in them. The emptiness between thoughts is phenomenon. If not, then you wouldn't be aware of it. I would also ask, what is you objectless state like? Is it light? Is it dark? Is it quiet? Is it peaceful? Also, there is a flip side to your coin. You say consciousness may exist without objects (a point we're still discussing), but you haven't shown how objects are independent of consciousness. In fact, there is no object independent of consciousness. Even assuming that there is objectless consciousness, one could easily say it is like a still pond, and objects are ripples. Again, there is no clear separation between consciousness and objects. Finally, how does one arrive at the conclusion that consciousness does not change? If you can detect changeless, have a feeling, a thought, a perception, this is an object, not consciousness. The same happens when describing phenomenon. Please tell me, what is the sound of a sound? How is red different from blue? What is sweet versus sour?

I think you can reduce space and time to phenomenon, for aren't they objects of consciousness? Definitions are hard. Words and concepts involve choices, so something is always excluded. For example: phenomenon is an object of consciousness. This may imply a difference between objects and consciousness. Has anyone ever seen an object outside of consciousness? Where does consciousness end and the object begin? So let us say that objects are consciousness. But as pointed out, object arise and pass away. (Pure) consciousness remains. If consciousness and objects were one, how would one tell the difference between the earth and the sky? Why can't we see consciousness? Where can we take a position?

Why is it we ask: what can TTB do for me? But we don't ask: what can I do for TTB? And I mean to offer without thought of getting something back, but just to offer, and forget it.

When there is no self that can be attacked Then what feels attacked cannot be the self Let go of this and be free

Nice translation. It seems that, as we get anywhere close to pure consciousness, immediately the mind seizes upon it and turns it into some thing. I think this is why Lao Tzu and the Zen masters emphasize so much letting go and dropping. One question: in Sanskrit, what the terms Pure Consciousness and Consciousness with Subject and Object?

The difference between a talker and a walker is clear. The fact that you don't seem to realize your posts are garbage show what you do and do not know about the viewless view. But then, it doesn't really matter, does it? All the world is a bodhimandala leading us to awakening, in our own time, in our own way.

Correction. Vajrahridaya states "a" Buddhist view, which others may or may not share. It may be a surprise to some, but there is no Buddhist pope! I think we can look at this thread and the Buddhism v. Advaita thread as a good learning point of what is called a "thicket of views."

What are you looking to do? Luckily, it is almost impossible to go in the wrong direction!

Upadhi?

The brilliance is in you. The people on this board are just the conditions that bring it out.

Delaying the inevitable? One may suggest that change is death. How can one create, in a compounded, impermanent body, that which never changes and/or dies?

What sees Brahman?