Sunya

Ralis, is it sectarian to view modern physics as more complete compared to pre-Einstein physics? Why not? You have this believe that all religions are the same, a flatland view. What is the basis for this belief? Why should we look at all methods as the same? Is it really that outlandish to view a particular method as more complete and aiming for a different goal than other methods? If so, why is it so negative to view that method as better? If we look at the valuation systems, "better" and "worse", in terms of how pragmatic a method is in awakening wisdom and compassion within an individual... then aren't Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita "better" than traditional Islam, Christianity, and Judaism which, though emphasizing compassion to a degree, do nothing in terms of actual wisdom? Of course there are exceptions but you can't argue that generally speaking Eastern paths are "better" than traditional Western traditions for gaining wisdom. Is it sectarian to say that? Or is just realistic given the facts? You are pointing out a belief that you have. The belief is that language is the essence of thought so one must transcend language and thus thought which then leads to some non-conceptual wisdom. Unfortunately that is not realistic. Language is not the essence of thought. There are much deeper levels to mind than language. There are deeper states of mind where thoughts exist which are more symbolic, more abstract. It's hard to explain, but freedom does not come from transcending language. Language and all forms of thought must be in-sync with non-dual realization for true freedom to arise. You cannot ignore thoughts, you cannot ignore language.

The superfood supplements I posted above, especially Garden of Life's product, are pretty good. Not sure how they compare to the Synergy product.. but Synergy does not have any probiotics, but it has a lot of asian mushrooms. Have no clue how good those are for you but instead of Asian mushrooms, Garden of Life's product has a ton more greens. Synergy is 56$ for 1 month supply... Garden of Life's Perfect Food is about 45$ for a 600gram bottle which lasts for 2 months. Wayy cheaper.

It's not a possible interpretation, it's the intended interpretation. Though of course others can have different interpretations, but the Buddha never meant the 4 noble truths to create a gloomy despair in people... on the contrary the purpose was always to end suffering and attain peace. They appear happy because they are no longer suffering. "Life is suffering" is merely the first noble truth, don't forget about the rest... There is a solution to the problem by developing wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental development; the goal is peace. All of this begins though with accepting that life is suffering. This has a pragmatic purpose. Mostly everyone denies this because they believe that there is good and there is bad, they strive for the good (pleasureful) and constantly are disappointed because there is never satisfaction; pleasure is always fleeting. You can only begin the path once you accept that you cannot find happiness by seeking it, you must give up the search entirely and by this you realize that "bliss is in our nature." as you said.

You've obviously never seen a Buddhist master in action if you agree with that. Does the Dalai Lama look gloomy to you? Ever? Anyway, "life is suffering" is a basic observation of human existence. If it wasn't suffering then everyone would already be joyous and fulfilled, but since it is suffering we have to take steps to create joy in our lives. Even if joy is a parcel of our true nature, it isn't present until you cultivate it.

alwayson, calm down dude. Why do you get so passionate? Too imbedded man, chill. Weren't you trying to ban yourself? Maybe you need a break..

Why did you start this thread? If you want to trust your bad translations and your experience then go ahead. Do you want others to verify your experience? Is that why you started this?

Buddha simply means 'awake' or 'enlightened.' His real name was Siddhartha Gautama. Buddha was not his name, its a title. Nobody says Siddhartha nature. It's called buddha nature. It's like saying an acorn possesses 'tree-nature' because the acorn has the potential to grow into a tree, given the right conditions (water, sunlight, soil). It is an abstract symbol. Nobody is getting your point because you're wrong.

Sweet! Thanks for posting that Xabir.

Thank you for posting that.. In my experience.. mindfulness is incredibly difficult! One hour a day of formal meditation just isn't enough. I have to be deliberate as often as possible because the momentum can be lost SO easily. I seek the no-return point where you have a flash of mindfulness, perhaps a satori in zen-talk, where you no longer are stuck in discursive thought and from then on its effortless, but so far it's just been deliberate and incredibly difficult! lol To sin, in ancient Greek, meant to miss the mark or to err. Everyone is born a sinner is another way of saying everyone is born deluded by seeking outside what is within. It is quite an accurate assessment imo, but of course paying your church to remove those sins won't work I don't quite understand what makes more sense..that all your garbage came completely randomly with no cause? If delusion does not have a cause then liberation is not possible. It is only because delusion has a cause that liberation is possible because all we're doing is removing the conditions that set liberation into continuous play. Believing in an continuous mindstream that carries karma [mental habits] is perhaps not necessary. I guess you can believe in genetic disposition and social and personal conditioning as the cause of your ignorance, but then where is the basis of enlightenment? How is it possible? If the causes for delusion are outside of yourself, externally caused, then how can you affect those causes and create illuminating change?

Buddha means awake, you are not awake therefore you are not a Buddha. A sleeping man always has the potential to wake up, but that doesn't mean that the sleeping man and the awake man are equivalent. If you believe that you're already awakened then you won't do any work, you'll just do whatever you want because everything is enlightened activity. Nargarjuna responded to such a deluded view by showing that the conventional, relative, reality is equally as valid as the ultimate reality. Ultimately everyone is a Buddha because there is no self, therefore no suffering. But relatively there is a self, and suffering, because view creates experience and a deluded experience is still very much real for those who suffer. It's extremely problematic to say everyone is already enlightened, suffering is an illusion. That's not realistic. Suffering is very real, just like a mirage is very real when you're hungry in a desert and your eyes play tricks on you. Doesn't mean that the mirage is actually there. The mind is very very powerful. Anyway, if you ignore the relative perception of suffering and delusion then Buddhism basically becomes nihilistic, but since the relative deluded reality is very real, we have to develop ourselves to awaken and remove the sheaths of wrong view. The moon is always right there? So the potential to fly to the moon is always there, in every moment, but since you lack the means you won't realistically get there. Kind of a crude example but it illustrates the point quite well that a potential isn't actual unless the conditions are there.

Very interesting.. thanks for posting that Trunk. I was lucky enough to participate in last month's intensive with Mark Griffin. I did it through streaming online and it was quite an experience. I set up my environment so that it seemed like I was actually there. I, alone in my room, had big speakers streaming the audio and on my TV I had a picture of Mark. This created an environment that allowed me to tune in. At first, I was slightly annoyed that music was played during the meditation sessions but then I got over it and actually enjoyed it. Not only was the music incredibly relaxing but it allowed me to develop an emotional response to the meditation, which I believe, is essential to opening and surrendering to the energies present in such an event. I'm not incredibly energy sensitive, but I did have many sensations and felt incredibly joyful for the next couple days. Something did happen. Mark definitely has power. His talks were very very good. He has a way of communicating which really resonates with me. He doesn't dumb things down nor does he make things too complex. It's just the right balance between intellectual and simple. I'm very glad for my opportunity to participate. I recommend everyone to participate in an intensive.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/ lol, are you trolling? It isn't difficult to do some research and see what Buddhanature actually means. You're taking the teaching completely out of context because you already have preconceived notions that all spiritual paths cling to some 'true self' which isn't true. Buddhanature is a symbol that all beings can awaken because there is no self. Since there is no binding inherent self, realization is possible because there are no limitations. It is a 'true self' teaching only on the surface, when taken out of context, but when brought into the full spectrum of Buddhist methodology it is a practice for you to surrender to the groundless nature of lack-of-self, so it is infact the complete opposite of a true self teaching. Self implies reference, but Buddhist realization is non-referential and center-less.

Is Shaktipat a 'type B' transmission?

I think what they mean is 'elitism.' If you say that your path leads to a different goal then you are elitist. This rests on the assumption that all paths are the same. It's like saying all economic systems are the same. Don't be elitist by saying capitalism is different from socialism! But anyone who actually studies economics knows there's a huge difference...

Interdependent does not mean dual. Dual means independent (two). Interdependent means not two, it also means not one. If you say that the Self is ultimately real, eternal, and self-arising then it is independent. It doesn't need something else to be independent from to be independent, but simply that it exists by itself. Ultimating the Self into a source of everything, a background from which everything arises and has 'oneness with', is an extreme counter-response to the old habit of seeing things dualistically. This is not the experience that the Buddhist path aims for because the grasping for identity is still there. The Buddhist aim is free-fall into non-conceptual wisdom which is different than believing in a One monistic substance.

You're the one who started this thread so its kind of funny that you say "I find these Buddhist/Advaita debates degenerate into a war of sources, but who cares?" and started it off with an article from a *gasp* scholar. This is wrong. The opposite of duality is not one. The idea of one depends on the former memory of duality. Since that experience of 'oneness' is based on an extreme counter-concept to the former concept of duality, it is not purely non-conceptual, and thus Buddhists completely reject the claim that Buddhism is the same as nondual traditions that seek oneness because they see that as an extreme view that is still caught up in concepts. Buddhism does not believe that in nothingness, there is indeed somethingness but that somethingness is interdependently arising. There is no source of something and this something has no inherent existence. That's why 'Self' is not in line with Buddhist realization. 'Self' implies inherence, implies independence. Existence does not imply that there is an independent something that exists. Existence, or Being, is simply the moment which is constantly changing, no separate from the content of the moment. Existence, content (appearances), and the moment are intrinsically tied together. There no separate Being which is the source of appearances which you call the Self. Being is the interdependent and constantly changing phenomena that make up the world. That's why, as Xabir suggested, the word 'becoming' is better suited rather than 'being' which does have a connotation of permanence. Becoming is better since every moment there is change and flow.

Welcome to the show. One way to annoy everyone is to make claims without backing them up.

I don't know. it's difficult to understand sense perception without falling into materialism. If you believe that an object out there caused your perception then you can easily doubt your perception and believe in a 'true reality' which is impossible to experience. In reality all we have are sense perceptions and thoughts about sense perceptions. I see both as ideas, as mind. If you think about a tree and then go out and look at one, of course there is a qualitative difference, but both are experienced through the mind. If you get rid of concepts about 'I am looking at an object called tree' what do you really have? In your experience what is the difference between seeing a tree and thinking about a tree? If you look at a tree, think about a tree, imagine a tree, dream about a tree... is there a difference in terms of what the base of each experience is? I'm not saying that they are all the same -- though I have had some pretty powerful dreams which seem exactly like waking experience-- but instead I'm saying that there is simply a difference in quality. Looking at a tree, experientially, there is only the appearance of a certain form. Smell and touch also come in and add to the picture of what the phenomena 'tree' is. Without adding the thought 'out there,' all you have experientially is the appearance of tree within awareness. That's it. The mind will then come in and try to add various thoughts like 'object' and 'real' and 'made of wood,' various observations based on limited information. We take these thoughts and lump them into the bundle that is 'tree' but is that justified? Are these observations accurate and deserving? I think if you stop trusting those thoughts for a second, you'll see that 'tree' is simply an appearance. If you say that there is TRULY a tree out there.. then that is assuming something that cannot be. Tree only exists when you perceive it. Tree is mind.

Not really relevant.. our discussions were more personal. We talked about academia since I'm considering going for a PhD. His work Nonduality was one of my inspirations for doing that because it was so fascinating.

I think you missed the point of Xabir's post. I love David Loy. His book was immensely inspiring for me and I communicate with him regularly, but I don't take him to be the end all-be all when it comes to this debate. Why? Because he's only experienced with the practice of Buddhism and compares that realization to the philosophy of Advaita, which may sound very similar. The uniqueness of Xabir's position is that his teacher has experience practicing in both Advaita and Buddhism, therefore his point isn't rooted in concepts. Likewise many Indian Buddhist scholars who later influenced Tibetan lineages were well aware of Advaita from an experiential perspective and they argued against that view. Not because it's a different way of explaining the end goal but rather because its a view that stops short of the Buddhist end goal. Why is it so difficult to see that positing an All-Self substance leads to grasping? It seems almost like common sense to me.

I don't really care for your definition of consciousness. 'That which knows' suggests a putative subject. Your explanation of how sense perception works is tied to a materialist framework. Have you actually experienced these wavelengths of this supposedly real and existing physical world existing out there which is full of them? Can you point to these wavelengths? How can you know a tree without a tree being present? Whether a tree is present in sensual appearance or as an idea or mental formation in the mind, it's still present or else there wouldn't be consciousness of tree. I don't think so. I have many doubts about this and so have philosophers and mystics for centuries who questioned the validity of such a naive claim. You're not talking about time, you're talking about the perceived succession of events. If you dream about your dead grandmother are you traveling back in time? The succession of moments is experienced no matter which state you are in. The nature of the content, the mechanics of the show, may differ but that doesn't mean that they are two different worlds

Go to college and get a broad education. If you live in the US that's pretty much mandatory since all schools have requirements, but take classes you find interesting and explore. Getting a Bachelors (and perhaps even a Masters) is a necessity these days for a decent non-physical labor job. I'm just graduating and possibly will go for a PhD in Religion or maybe go to acupuncture school. I have no clue as of yet. Prior to college I had absolutely no idea what I wanted to do so at least now I have some direction due to all the exposure i've had during college to various topics. So I really suggest you go to college. Go to a good one. The level of academic rigor at crappy schools will bother you if you're serious about learning.

http://gizmodo.com/5012347/nasa-scientists-make-magnetic-fields-visible-beautiful WOWZERS