forestofclarity

Concierge
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,104

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Posts posted by forestofclarity

  2. Posted

    3 hours ago, Tommy said:

    As I get older and another day closer to death, it makes me wonder what is the truth. What, if anything goes from one life to the next? I have heard the idealized and romantic stories of what awaits us after life. What is the truth?

     

    Time is short, better find out! 

    • Like 2

  3. Posted

    15 hours ago, Turnip said:

    The main concern is that most of the traditional spiritual paths and practices are of the East, are collectivistic, negating of the ego, and are patriarchal, and modern psychology is moving more towards an androgynous/feminist, individualistic, and an increasingly intelligent and sophisticated ego that can be used as an expressive extension / tool of the Self, rather than something to be negated to reach Self. 

     

    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. 

     

    • Like 1

  4. Posted

    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. 


     

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    27 minutes ago, Dainin said:

    Why the forced choice? Why not work on restoring both, as it was prior to the slow down?

     

    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. 

    • Thanks 1

  8. Posted

    1 minute ago, Taomeow said:

     

    Please make it possible to find old content.  If not via the search feature (which indeed was never quite functional), then via any other mechanism.  Right now it looks like 20 years of content have been demolished.  It sucks.  Don't know about now but in the past the owner used to be opposed to deleting anything -- so I hope no one is OK with deleting everything... and right now it de facto looks as though that's what happened.

     

    Google worked for me: 

     

    https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/9681-nonduality/

    • Like 2

  9. Posted

    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? 

    • Like 2

  11. Posted

    10 hours ago, NeiChuan said:

    Seems I still can't make a new post, it is moved now though at least.

     

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

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    12 hours ago, Bindi said:

    Honestly, I’m just tired of hearing the same stock responses, especially from Buddhist and nondual traditions. It often feels like the same counterpoints get recycled no matter the context - they’re so familiar that they’ve started to feel more like auto-pilot than insight.

     

    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. 

     

    12 hours ago, Bindi said:

    I’m not interested in theories.

     

    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. 

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    18 hours ago, Bindi said:

    Declaring everything “maya” (illusion) is an intellectual or metaphysical strategy to avoid feeling pain.

     

    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. 

     

    18 hours ago, Bindi said:

    In Advaita or Buddhist logic, there’s often a push to invalidate the personal story as quickly as possible by labeling it “maya.”

     

    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. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  14. Posted

    6 hours ago, NeiChuan said:

    Just wondering how to open mine back up. Haven't been on the site in years and feel the need to communicate/write things down.

     

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

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    7 hours ago, Bryan said:

    Hi there, I am new here looking for a real mo pai teacher no scams, have been lurking reading for a while but ready to learn!

    Mo pai discussion has been banned.

    • Thanks 1

  20. Posted

    On 4/1/2025 at 1:12 AM, FriedrichPlatons said:

    Hello everyone,

    I've joined the Dao Bums community because I'm eager to deepen my understanding of Taoism and Qi Gong. I've been practicing Qi Gong on my own and feel it's time to connect with others who share this path and learn from your experiences and insights.

    Looking forward to being a part of this vibrant community!

     

    Welcome!

  21. Posted

    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! 

     

     

     

     

  25. Posted

    I'm not a particular fan of JS but have a few thoughts: 

     

    Quote

    1. Samadhi brought about by concentrating and stilling the intellect may yield Self knowledge, but it will disappear as soon as concentrated absorption in the silence ends.  You can’t concentrate on one thing forever.

     

    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. 

     

    Quote

    2. All knowledge, material or spiritual, occurs in the intellect.  Ignorance also occurs in the intellect. You need to know the difference between knowledge and ignorance.  If you do, you are free, because you will never choose ignorance because it causes suffering, whereas Self knowledge produces bliss.

     

    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. 

     

    Quote

    3. Self-realization is Self-knowledge—understanding the “ever-present, ever-evident I” is non-dual consciousness, not a mystic experience.

     

    The "I" ness of I seems to dissolve, IMO. 

      

    Quote

    5. Enlightenment isn’t a destination attained by following a path;  it is reclaiming our disowned nature by exposing the mind/intellect to Vedanta, the science of Self . What’s disowned due to ignorance must be claimed through knowledge, not action.  Action reinforces ignorance. It does not remove it. 

     

    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. 

     

    Quote

     

    6. Dismissing Self knowledge because knowledge is “merely intellectual” is a “merely intellectual” conclusion based on the idea that thinking and awareness are in different orders of the one non-dual reality.  Life is a both/and, not an either/or.  


     

     

    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. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2