forestofclarity

Douglas Duckworth's Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teaching is also an excellent summary of Mipam's view in easy to read language.

Time is short, better find out!

I actually think Western thought aligns fairly well with thought from India in ways that it does not with China or Japan. Some people find that certain Tantric expressions are less patriarchal or masculine. A lot of modern Western therapy is discovering what Buddhism has had for millenia-- in some ways, the interaction has spurred a lot of growth in psychology IME. There is a broad expression such that there are always examples and counterpoints. But ignorance doesn't arise from the East or West, and the fundamental nature is beyond male and female. So I think there's a difference between truth and culture and between therapy and spirituality. Not a lot of Western therapists seem to display the signs of mastery of traditional practitioners. OTOH, a lot of traditions are not so great at dealing with the aches and pains of lay life, parenting, etc. I think modern therapy is valuable for dealing with life, but not so much for transcending the issues of birth and death. However, there's no reason to choose one or the other exclusively. Most of my teachers have said some issues are better dealt with therapy and others with spirituality.

People have claimed that we have more awakenings and stronger practices these days than ever before. However, looking at the apparent state of the world, I'm not convinced. I think most of the newer practices and movements tend to lull people into a false sense of spiritual realization. Even so, I would rather people practice some form of spirituality than none at all. Traditions developed their "modern" practices a few thousand years ago--- in Tantra and Dzogchen, for example, which is one reason you see more of this and less people developing very deep states of concentration and samadhi.

Welcome! 🙏

Welcome!

The tools I have access to are limited. If people have thoughts on what we can do given the software, we can probably have a more detailed discussion via PM.

Google worked for me: https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/9681-nonduality/

It looks like the search function is limited to 60 days. We can change it, but this may cause slowing down on the website. This was not initially set, so this may have been one way we previously addressed the slow down. So I would ask: longer search or faster board?

Welcome!

That's weird. Everything seems to be in order. I'll see if I can fiddle with it when I have some time.

The critiques strike me as clumsy, dismissive caricatures. But I'm sure the traditions will survive. Back in the day, Vedantins were said to worship a giant spider. Spiritual bypassing has been a subject of wide discussion in Buddhist circles for decades, and there have been currents going back millenia. It seems to me the original post is based primarily on projecting stories onto an imagined "other." In this case, that "other" happens to include me, so it is a but bemusing.

There's nothing intellectual about it in my mind. If one examines closely, appearances are magical and dreamlike. This isn't somehting one chooses to believe or disbelieve. One investigates and sees for oneself. Plus the sages of these traditions do feel pain. Different traditions take a different approach. A Shankaran Advaitin might say that Brahman (the underlying nature) is real, but doesn't appear, and what does appear is based on ignorance, aka maya. A Shaivaite, or possibly a Vijnana Vedantin, will say that Shiva (the underlying nature) is real, and so are the expressions, aka Shakti. A Buddhist might say that both the are empty, and others may say that appearances are actually Buddha realms in disguise. Not at all. That's why we have two truth teachings, for relative, transactional truth and ultimate truth. As is said, the view should be as broad as the sky but conduct as fine as barley flour.

I moved it back. Let me know if it still works.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Mo pai discussion has been banned.

Welcome!

I've recently come across Swami Medhananda, who has offered a a new school of Vedanta he calls "vijnana vedanta." It is based on the teaching of Ramakrishna, and essentially seems to combine Vedanta and Tantra a la the Tripura Rahasya. I've only listened to a few of his videos, but this vision of Vedanta rejects the oft repeated: jagat mithya, Brahman satyam with Brahman satyam, jagat satyam. His further claim is that, contrary to Swami Sarvapriyananda, is that traditional Shankaran Advaita cannot be pursued by nearly anyone nor may it combined with other practices such as bhakti devotion, etc. because the bhakti practies inherently reinforce duality. According to Swami M, Shankara would prescribe bhakti as a preparation, and then a dropping of it for jnana once one has developed a high level of separation from bodily consciousness. He argues that, contrary to Swami S, the traditional qualifications must be present to an extremely high degree. Ramakrishna, on the other hand, provides a way to integrate practices -- by acknowledging that all manifestations are real. He also claims a lot of monks from the order have retreated from Ramakrishna back to Shankara. It is interesting to see some one advocate for a new school of Vedanta --- he even plans to put forth a Vijnana Vedanta commentary on the Brahma Sutras!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

I'm not a particular fan of JS but have a few thoughts: I think he misses the point here. Samadhi can be incredibly useful for shutting down the mind in order to obtain a clearer view of what is essential. The error arises when one mistakes a state of meditation with an essential state of being. Swami Sarvapriyananda describes this. If you want to view the screen, you can try to discern it while the movie is going, or you can shut down the projector to see it. The error arises thinking the projector needs to be shut down all the time. But to say that there is no lasting impact from the shutting down and rebooting misses the point and suggests a gap in meditation experience. Depends on what is meant by knowledge. I would say jnana is knowing that does not occur in the intellect, as opposed to vijnana, but no distinction is made here. The "I" ness of I seems to dissolve, IMO. This seems to contradict his earlier point. I don't agree with the "vedanta is intellectual" movement generally. I interacted with JS many years ago when he was just getting started. I told him I understood intellectually, but it was not a lived truth or reality. He said that it is was merely understanding plus confidence. I don't think this will stand up in the long run, and have come to learn the difference between intellectual understanding and realization. I don't think he does, or a least he didn't. This says to me he doesn't understand the prior point. As they say in Dzogchen, experiences are like mist, they fade. Understanding is like a patch, it falls away. Realization is like space, unchanging. Swami S again does not make this mistake, and explains that intellectual understanding is a first step in the shravana, manana, nididhyasana. JS is only touching on the first two, IMO.