forestofclarity

Concierge
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,104

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Posts posted by forestofclarity

  4. Posted

    2 hours ago, stirling said:

     

    Are you saying that a true guru could walk through the world and just enlighten people? 

     

    Interestingly, I do think the presence of a teacher may invoke meditative states by temporarily stilling the mind and potentially allowing additional spiritual states to arise. I also think a lot of us then confuse these temporary states with permanent realization, and thereby miss the point and try to recreate the state. But I do think it is easier to obtain clear knowledge when the mind is relatively stilled in this way. 

     

    For better or worse, this happening or not happening does tend to color my judgments. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  14. Posted

    Quote

     

    The phenomena we see are curious and surprising — but the most marvellous thing of it all we do not realise and that is that one, and only one, illimitable force is responsible for:

     

    (a) All the phenomena we see,

     

    (b) The act of our seeing them.

     

    Do not fix your attention on all these changing things of life, death, and phenomena. Do not think of even the actual act of seeing them or perceiving them but only of that which sees all these things. That which is responsible for it all. This will seem nearly impossible at first, but by degrees the result will be felt. It takes years of steady, daily practice, but that is how a Master is made. Give yourself a quarter of an hour a day. Keep your eyes open, and try to keep the mind unshakenly fixed on That Which Sees. It is inside yourself. Do not expect to find that “That” is something definite on which the mind can be fixed easily; it will not be so. Though it takes years to find that “That” the results of this concentration will soon show themselves — in four or five months’ time — in all sorts of unconscious clairvoyance, in peace of mind, in power to deal with troubles, in power all round — always unconscious power. I have given you this teaching in the same words as the  Masters give it to their intimate chelas. From now onwards let your whole thought in meditation be not on the act of seeing nor on what you see, but immovably on That Which Sees.

     

     

    Ramana Maharshi as related to Frank Humphreys 

     

    Also: 

     

    Quote

    Ramana: Gaze at your own real nature. It is immaterial whether the eyes are open or closed. Everywhere there is only the one, so it is all the same whether you keep your eyes open or closed. If you wish to meditate, do so on the "I" that is within you. It is the Self. Because it has no eyes, there is no need either to open or close the eyes. When you attain Self-knowledge, there will no longer be any ideas about the world. When you are sitting in a room, whether the windows are open or closed, you are the same person, in the same state. In the same way, if you abide in the Reality, it is all the same whether the eyes are open or closed. It matters little whether external activities go on or not.

     

    trans. Natarajan

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    Quote

    Profound, peaceful, stainless, lucid, and unconditioned‍—
    Such is the nectar-like truth I have realized.
    Were I to teach it, no one would understand,
    So I will silently remain in the forest.

    I have discovered the supremely sublime and astonishing absolute,
    The ineffable state, untainted by language,
    Suchness, the sky-like nature of phenomena,
    Completely free of discursive, conceptual movement.

    This meaning cannot be understood through words;
    Rather it is comprehended through reaching their limit.
    Yet when sentient beings, whom previous victorious ones took under their care,
    Hear about this truth, they develop confidence in it.

     

    -- the Buddha, Lalitavistara Sutra, recollecting his moment of enlightenment

  20. Posted

    4 hours ago, stirling said:

    Both appear in consciousness, both are the product of causes and conditions, and both arise in emptiness. More and more, as dualities dissolve, I think that inevitably this artificial boundary will also completely fall away. 

     

    If you think it's aritifical, try to feed yourself on dream food or buy a taco with imagined gold! :lol:

     

    Distinguishing relative appearances is the wisdom of discernment or discrimination in the traditions I am familiar with. Being unable to distinguish mental illness or relative illusion would be a problem, aka "the two moon problem." 

     

    4 hours ago, stirling said:

    I have actually met Theravada teachers who do this in some form or another anyway.

     

    Some do, some don't. I try to meet people in their paradigm. 

     

    2 hours ago, old3bob said:

    I get it now, E=Mc2,  or Empty=Meaning times Cobb salads doubled up...namely one for relatively real bodies and one for the Golden Buddha body. 

     

    Gaudapada is pretty on point with emptiness of conventional phenomenon from a Madhyamaka POV, and so is Shankara. Swami Sarvapriyananda is able to navigate it pretty well, and sees a lot of correlation. 

     

    Do you follow a tradition, old3bob? It might be easier if you set forth just what you accept as authoritative. 

    • Haha 1

  21. Posted

    1 hour ago, stirling said:

    Yes, there are gods, devas, nagas, as well as heavens, hells, realms, etc. All of them happen within emptiness of the dharmakaya and lack intrinsic existence. This is something that can be seen moment to moment.

     

    Yes, in Tibetan nomenclature, we would say that things appear conventionally but remain ultimately empty. And yes, the formless realms (arupa loka) is not the same thing emptiness (sunyata). Within the conventional realm, we can also distinguish between valid and invalid perceptions. A hallucination and a mountain and both empty, but once has conventional validity in a way the other doesn't (which is why some distinguish between conventional reality and ultimate emptiness). 

     

    Of course, some here ascribe to the Pali suttas in particular which tend to posit real atoms of matter and mind, a position rejected by Mahayana. 

     

    One area of dispute among modern Buddhists is whether gods, devas, etc. are conventionally "real" or merely psychological symbols, or whether the arupa jhanas are actual lokas or merely states of mind. 

     

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    20 hours ago, dwai said:

    The role of deities is necessary, depending on the path one travels, IMHO. Understanding that Deities are "real" at the transactional/causal level is essential. Deities can help individuals progress spiritually so long as one knows how to practice with them.

     

    Interesting comment. All spiritual traditions have developed some sort of intermediary between the instantiated person and the fully divine, whether these are Messiahs, Saints, angels, Sefirot, mantras, etc. there is at some point a defined name and form that bridges the specifically appearing and the formless possibilities. It is also interesting that in many traditions this dimension is often accessed via the imaginal realm, through visualization and dreams. 

     

     

    • Like 1