3bob

My interpretation is that when we take the lesson of the four fold negation (which btw imo also has a certain aspect of affirmation to it) then all of this talk of concepts, etc.. can be seen or taken from a more useful perspective, but if not then instances of speculation or other extremes like grandstanding tend to occur - just as the historic Buddha and other wise teachers have pointed out and or warned about. Om

"The realization of luminosity, or nonduality, is realized by all mystical traditions because they all aim to dissolve the self (thoughts and sensations), but the realization of non-inherence does not come from dissolving the self. It comes through inquiring into the very nature of self on a grand scale. The self of luminosity must be seen through. This is what you keep missing. You think emptiness means luminosity, when actually emptiness is the nature of luminosity". Mikaelz OK... Although in some schools besides those of Buddhism the "Self" is pointed to as that beyond "luminosity" which is something that certain Buddhists apparently do not recognize about those schools and thus more or less stereo-type all others in ways that it sounds like you doing above. Anyway, if you are saying all of "mind" must be seen through, even the most subtle and purest luminosity, then maybe we agree along those lines? Om

I agree with Serene Blue on that one... Om

Thanks Raymond, good timing I plead the "four-fold negation". (in this case better than the 5th amendment) Besides, there is the Udana sutta to consider. Om

Does a seed suffer when it changes into a sprout and then from a sprout and there on for each change...? Thus some type of what could more or less be called suffering is necessary or takes place as related to such changes; further - what does not change does not suffer. Om

I've been short on time and want to say thanks for the replies people sent to me earlier in this string... I can't exactly see going back to earlier in this string since there have been so many posts, thus for now I'd like to jump back in here and make the comment that no matter how great the teachings, including imo any form of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. (none of which I'm not an expert on) still have to be set down after they have served their purpose as a "raft"; thus for anyone to say that their raft is better than another's raft is missing the mark and also not properly using what may be a well intended and designed raft. Btw, I believe that the Dalai Lama said something along the lines of, "we do not want you to up and change your religion" while visiting and speaking in the predominantly Mormon area of SLC.

Hi CowTao, I didn't exactly mean all of those mental/emotional/memory processes in my last quote, I meant the "akasa" which records whether we do all of those things you've described or not. A monk or a nun in a protected compound may not have get involved in the world very much but even there a time may come when they do, like war, natural diasters, sickness, etc., and thus have to use other aspects of the mind to protect their human lives. I'm going out of town and rushed right now, sorry for the short reply. Om

My interpretation is that change is only the "ultimate" truth for "things"; while the Udana sutra (among others) points to an ultimate (so to speak) which is an end to the sorrow that is bound to things... "There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned". (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro 1994) And it seems to me sometimes that this teaching is not of much importantance to some Buddhists (?) when they (sorry for the "they" people) go around and around talking about things and change, yet without the truth that the above sutra points to - all knowledge and facts of things, change, realms, meditations, etc., would not lead to emancipation as described. Om

Hi CowTao, I'm not exactly taking that personally... more like an observation - also as I believe you know everything that has ever passed before our eyes is recorded in the mind/akasa so I don't see much surprise per-se about things being around or revisited. Anyway, imo that was not the only instance of harping. Another recent case (among others) involved a well versed Buddhist proclaiming that his path was the best of all and doing so at largely Taoist sponored site. (?) Btw, seeing that I don't know how to hunt posts down like you have, perhaps you could find that one (quoted or linked) for the rest of us? And if you don't mind I'd like to ask you for your opinion about that statement, which I think several people here took as a form of antics. Regards, Bob

I believe the term "bliss junkie" was recently used in another string. (and I'd have go back looking around for it...)

When Spirit completely takes over like an "ear-worm" then there's no room left in there to also fit or listen to an ego-worm.

Hello Vaj, The 8th Jhana, thus before (the attainment of) the "Beyond of the beyond" as spoken of in Buddhist Sutras. Also, if you are only or mainly referring to various beliefs in Hinduism, Buddhism or any other schools then we could pick and poke at such forever... The great bliss of an apparent two-ness attaining non-dual oneness/samadhi is not at the end of all "Hindu" teachings which you seem to constantly imply in your texts? Anyway, I'm no expert and I've done enough picking and poking for awhile. Good day. Om

The "Self" knows the ego for what it is... (a construct) while the ego will never know the Self. Om

See, you are skipping ahead to the "beyond of the beyond"... (as the Buddha is witnessed and or quoted in sutta) while I was not trying to conceptualize there. Thus you deny 8th Jhana non-dualism from a "beyond of the beyond" reference or definition which does not apply to it. Mikalez seems to partly get it although he apparently adds a twist of his own? Some forms of Hinduism that I've studied are along the lines of you call, "meditation samadhi" but there again you are putting or limiting all of "Hinduism" to those particular boxes which is not the whole story. (so to speak) Om

Excuse me, imo that's one hell of a double-talk projection which does not fly when either a "Buddhist" a "Hindu" or anyone else for that matter attains non-dualism of the 8th Jhana. Further, If you want to mix in the Buddha pointing to the "beyond of the beyond" using Buddhist terminolgy then that is one of your "particulars" or conditions and is thus understandable from that frame of reference... even though you nor anyone else can really fit such into a even the biggest of boxes.

Intellect is a dualistic based tool with limitations related to same; so it's kind of funny to me that we have all sorts of supposedly absolute or irrefutable intellectual concepts flying around about what some see as the truest type of non-dualism along with intellectual definitions of two or more types of other non-dualism that don't measure up according to measurements made by a dualistically limited tool. lol, unless we go nuts... Om

Vaj, Perhaps you should re-read the Upanishads? And since you were once a "Hindu" it seems that you could better paraphrase that the Chandogya and other upanishads teach non-dualism . Btw, the Buddha also taught non-dualism of the 8th Jhana, similar to how his his "Hindu" teachers taught him, which is getting very, very far ahead of the game for most of us!! Om

I gotta go fix my Chevy and it's only from 1996 AD... Om

Btw, I appreciate the quote below - and granted some of you might not "In other words human beings are not the ones who initiate the seeking of Enlightenment, God, or the Absolute - Reality is, forever, seeking out human beings. Reality calls us to the Path. It establishes one on the Path. Reality provides one with the doctrines, practices, guides and spiritual community. Reality watches over the seeker (in the form of a teacher, guru, shaykh, or master) during the spiritual journey, and, finally, Reality provides the vehicle of realization through which the mystical quest is brought to fruition". Om

hmm... I was poking some fun there... I guess you are to? Btw, I don't know who "you" is since there only is one of us.

Will "I" ever be able to jump through enough hoops to become enlightened, at which time I will then know who I am

"From Theravada to Vajrayana, the emphasis is to view reality correctly. Never lose sight of that"... alwayson I feel we can all agree on that! Back to the 8 jhanas for a minute - I'm not qualified on them yet ime I don't see them as being only Buddhist or only of "Buddhist metaphysics" if that what you are saying (?) since such have been discovered and or re-discovered and taught by various paths and people for who knows how long, when or where?! (one example being that which was taught to the Buddha by his "Vedic/upanishad" related type teachers) Thus if or when certain Buddhists discount the jhana teachings that go by different names in other paths, then imo they are also effectivly discounting their own Buddhist teachings related to same. Om

Ok TzuJanLi and agreed, Btw, it was somewhat strange to me to hear you say in another string that you could not tell us certain things and then soon there-after you apparently proceeded to beat around the bush about those certain things? Om Na Ma Si Va Ya

The "I" has to have or be a unified will to surrender that will, that's the catch so to speak. Thus not getting stuck in denial of will nor non-surrender of will is the exacting test before us... We also hear teachings about a middle path between becoming and non-becoming. Om

My life is only apparent compared to the Life, thus it could be said that Life really practices something called me. Om