3bob

An age old problem remains: one can not kill the forms of dualism that arise out of oneness with dualistic methods, yet the limits or hard felt dichotomies of dualism can effectively die. Om

MH, I'd comment that your apparent dismissal (or perhaps a putting on the shelf) of concepts "such as this" (or the transcendent) also logically applies to the "concept" of atheism if one were to follow such a format of seeing things and in being congruent with same, thus one can't go there (or to atheism) any more than they can go anywhere else with other concepts that only remain in the realm of concepts.

Well there can be or is "danger" in not having a solid foundation of spiritual-whole-someness along with common sense wisdom acting as ones default and naturally protective state. Also in fully recognizing, facing and over-coming the unpleasant (or potential unpleasant) that is in within ourselves will in the end overcome any relative unpleasant force on the outside. ..."And on top of all that, there's the question of scheming evil ba4tards to deal with. Of course, they're 'relatively real' in this dimension but they need their butts kicked out of it IMO". by Kate Sharks can not bite that which is out of their reach. (including that which is in the astral dimensions; btw wise fisherman spend more time fishing than in killing sharks) Om

I think I understand what you mean... and I deleted that particular link because some people might think that the manipulations of breathe mentioned is some kind of "magic carpet ride" to tinker with when such teachings imo really have a great deal more to them in careful preparation and practice with help of a qualified teacher! To me the observable "things" are all relative and spinning with change, still there is proof beyond doubt, but such proof will never be found in the thinking of things or thinking of nothing mind. Om

no-thing no aggregate, yet...

I've also touched a time or two on that saying about the Buddha. I think I know what you mean about personification... like a way of trying to communicate about something with our limited language(s). Btw, I came across some Kashmir Shaivism material that may be of interest (?) to you regarding some of these subjects - along with revisiting one of your earlier posts from Nov.15 where you asked the following question: "Dwai, I know it's an old question but if consiousness is experiencing unity of consciousness, isn't that problematic? The experience is real, yes, but the conclusion is "after the fact". One variation of information (with particualr terms to deal with) says the following: "...Nimilana samadhi is internal subjective samadhi. In your moving through these six states of turya, this samadhi becomes ever more firm. With the occurrence of krama mudra, nimilana samadhi is transformed into unmilana samadhi, which then becomes predominant. This is that state of extraverted samadhi, where you experience the state of samadhi at the same time you are experiencing the objective world. And when unmilana samadhi becomes fixed and permanent, this is the state of jagadananda" from Kashmir Shaivism I hope that helps speak to your question from Nov 15.? Good day

true, and there really is no light inside of light nor sound inside of sound. Om

Well I'd suggest a short quote or two from K.S. to go along with paraphrasing about their schools teachings... (a school which may be basically known to some while others may have never heard of it) Also and as you well know topics at this site often reach for the deepest, highest or most subtle... very seldom does one see page after page speaking to the beginning yet ever present precepts and practice of yama. (and niyama) I live in the world of a blue collar industrial shift-worker who is around a lot of noise located in a drastically non-Hindu aquainted part of the country, (like most of America where shopping malls with westernized hatha yoga classes doesn't really cover same) yet once in a while I visit the quiet mind-set of the contemplative world; a world so to speak where it easier to tune in to mystical type teachings. Anyway, where are we going to go if we are starting near the end? Om

.

Me to.

Neat, there is something to learn all the time. I was going to delete the entire post earlier...

Dwai, I only had very brief e-mail contact with the K.S. school. The limited "experiences" I mentioned were with another school of Shaivism that has some aspects or traditions in common with K.S.. But I can not speak for these schools, such would be up their designated people or contacts; although I may share some understandings in a very general way about help that was given me. Om

Kate, Thanks for your feedback. My take: Religious thought forms are not unlike other thought forms in operation... and when such forms lose their living essence then decay and or warping of such forms "naturally" sets in... thus the essence as you imply to me is of interest to you (and also to me) yet I do not begrudge forms (or vehicles) that do their best or that are maintained "naturally" to stay true to the essence that gives life and meaning to their form. Aka, "judge the tree by its fruit"

Ok also

"Prayer at Sunrise" Om

Lakota Woman Society Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObEVuCJ7QUQ&feature=fvst .

My take on the "One": The One is "born" of (and connected to) the Tao, this One can be talked about (named and known) while the Tao at best can only be alluded to. The One is knowable in the union of two in one, whereas only the Tao can know the Tao. Om

Hello Dwai, I submitted that link as a resource for anyone interested. I'm not qualified to comment much on the materials (excepting for my own very limited experiences) while they (The Swami) or the text speaks very well for itself... I do like this school because it does not stress some of the super strict, (male dominated) and heavy handed sectarian ways that some schools do. Om

...and my variation or spin-off of same: what is enough, (?) not this - not that.

one take: "In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya is questioned by his students to describe god. He states "The Divine is not this and it is not that" (neti, neti).

Hi MH, MH: "...that we were supposed to get down on our knees and pray to some entity that we had created in our own mind" 3bob: Many people would take the connotation given above as a description of them having or suffering from delusions, thus counter to: MH: "I have never tried to denigrate any religion since I have been a member here at TTB" 3bob: yet imo you have directly implied (while standing on thin ice) that someone else's belief, religion or more importantly experience is somehow wrong or misguided? Oh well, many people would say, "we still like ya..." Om

What? Note: there was a coma after the word Tao. But I can see why you apparently chose to string or lump all of the examples together (which I did not mean to do in that way) to support your point. As for you saying, "We Taoists" that sounds like an assumption to me since those that practice under the name Taoists or Taoism have a much, much greater range than just atheist, materialist, etc., regardless of also dealing with the practical concerns of the worldly life you mention. Also the TTC constantly alludes to (with talk) about that which cannot be circumscribed with talk, thus it sounds like another assumption along such lines on your part when you use the word "we". Btw, I never said Lao Tzu or other Taoists said we are supposed to get down on our knees in the way you state and project. As for various entities some may be projections depending on the person practicing, but that does not mean all entities are, for there are great soul beings that do exist and thus they can not be dismissed as make believe projections. Om

MH, "So we pick the one or ones that 'feel' right to us and there we are". Ok, that sounds like a more "proper" way to put it. By the way since generally accepted science has no proof one way or the other about most of the subjects at this site like: Tao, "God" or gods, saints, masters (etc.) I don't really understand how an atheist can claim being logical or science based... although I do see how being skeptical or an agnostic of some type is logical, since they have no proof and or they are not automatically closed off to the idea of pending proof(s) yet to be come... Btw, for those that have "blind faith" about subjects like these yet have no direct experience of same would also be un-logical (in the sense of what could be termed "spiritual science") in not being skeptical or of not being of some type of agnostic persuasion until they have such proof(s) one way or another. Om

If you have some clips of American Indian songs that you would like to add here - go ahead.