Sunya

Psychs aren't bad, there IS no bad. this isn't a morality thing at all, some of you people are getting a bit too defensive here. they just aren't that conducive in the long run for someone on the spiritual path. i took psychs before: LSD, mushrooms, and mescaline, and of course it helped me to become aware of aspects of my psyche and put me more in touch with these shadowy demons, so I did benefit. but I stopped. I found that there is no proper emotional foundation while taking any sacred plant and this lack of foundation is terrible. (whether its Mushrooms, Cactus, or even Ayahuasca) you are handed realizations that you can not integrate yet, and are bombarded with aspects of your personality which you might not be ready for. This does not mean that these plants give you the ultimate insights, and its simply a matter of you not being ready no, i don't think that is the case. I do not think non-dual experience and realization can come from sacred plants, because i think the particular insight that comes from these plants are limited to subtle/astral level and possibly a formless realm (that would be mistaken for non-dual probably), and the insights are usually mixed with a lot of extra glittery bullshit. IF you are given a true insight while tripping, that is wonderful, but unfortunately you will probably forget it, not be able to integrate it, or will also gain a new shiny delusion from the trip as well. You might have an insight into some truth, but Samsara just got a whole lot more interesting because you discovered something really incredible and amazing. So its up to you, choose your method. There is no doubt that Shamanism played a huge role in our society's development, spiritually, but not everything from the past is always the best, new methods are always invented. You wouldn't take an early 1900s U Boat to cross the Atlantic Ocean if you had choice of a private jet, would you? No. the U Boat is outdated and you have no clue where it will take you, or if you'll even make it. I know people who use 'sacred plants' as tools and unfortunately this easy way can become too addicting, the mind becomes too unstable, and no real progress is ever made.

If Dharma is your goal why seek anywhere else? IMO, the goals are different for a Magician and someone on the path of Dharma. the Tibetans have many methods but the view is always the Buddhist view, which is of emptiness. in Vajrayana any Diety is always taught to be a representation of your true nature, never self existing. in Hermetics is the same taught? i'm not sure. maybe. But I read about Step 10 and it sounds like a 'Union' type experience, not what realization is about, so choose your goal and go for it. Method isn't everything, View is more important.

bahahah, so true. since when is that a conclusive argument "ALL the HIGH level PSYCHICS are in agreement" . WELL in that case I MUST believe. but i want to hear from the LOW level psychics first, maybe they have a better 'view' most psychics have no idea how to use siddhis and only end up projecting their unconscious fears onto a non-existent future. there are no 'facts'that point to anything relevant happening in 2012. yes there will be some astronomical event but there is no proof anything drastic will happen. You could die next week in a car crash. you have no proof of the reality of this. show some sources for your ridiculous claims. curb your mind, its running off with your reason. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/19/no-doomsday-in-2012/ http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/25/2012-no-planet-x/

excellent thread

McLaughlin rocks

what's your goal Simonin what are you looking for

the sun is not an individual entity that 'does' anything but I see your point. this is a pretty dumb thread btw, though I voted yes just for fun

nice

a while ago in China people thought the same thing

they are rather completely different. Ingram's book is more of a book filled with great tips and models, while Dharma Punx is a great read about his life story going from punk rock punk in and out of juvie to dharma practitioner.

indeed hey if i'm wrong, no one would be happier than me. hanging out in a formless realm only to be sucked back in at the end of the cosmic eon does NOT sound like a good time, and i wouldn't wish it upon anyone, truly. i'll let Xabir respond about Maharshi and Ingram as he is much more familiar with them than I am. but, I will say this. I've had 2 Advaita teachers, one was Trika Spanda Kashmir Shivaism and the other was very much based on Maharshi. they both taught about a 'ground of being' being the source of all phenomena and the goal was absorption, and identification with, this source. here's a quote from the Maharshi style teacher: ------------- What is this 'Self' in Self-Realization? GuruSwamiG: When the Self is spoken of it not speaking of the egoic self. Self is That which is the Formless Constant which is beyond all division and time etc. http://www.guruswamig.com/faq.html soo.. I think that this Formless Constant she speaks of is what I mentioned before as identification with the background, whereas in Buddhist realization this background is seen as illusion. i think that it is very clear based on the language here, that the realizations are different. you can say that the realizations are the same, but the language is different, the terms. but I disagree, and that is what is the main point here,

people like to lump all traditions into one, it makes them sleep better at night, i was merely questioning that assumption. buddhism isn't better it's just different. i wouldn't consider this an argument, just a discussion. i respect everyone here and their beliefs. if you want a good book on non duality, comparatively, instead of discussing the subtle differences, then i hear this is good http://www.amazon.com/Nonduality-Comparati...8720&sr=1-4 as for another forum, check out E Sangha

Let's not get sucked into meaningless specifics and miss the general point. All branches of Hinduism see Brahman as real and self-existing. and the goal of Hinduism, and most religious traditions, is to merge with a real eternal source. By enlightened I mean having full experiential knowledge of emptiness and anatta. Buddha was the first of our kalpa to espouse this truth, and only the followers of dharma realize that wisdom. Only in Hinayana is Buddha considered a human teacher, in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddha is an emanation of Dharmakaya.

Buddhist Tantra came from India, likewise so did Hindu Tantra. they both came about during the same time, and in the same Himalayan region, so it is impossible to say which came first. Who is your Guru? I too used to practice Kashmiri Shaivism this is who initiated me, he's a wonderful teacher http://www.suprememeditation.org/aboutak.html i'm all for non sectarianism, no doubt. i love all religions, and have studied most. but i think it's quite silly and naive to believe that there exists only one mountain and all paths go to the top. it is very evident that people are of different capacities and enlightenment is not an easy 1 shot deal to accomplish. furthermore this isn't half-baked academic writing but enlightened teachers talking from experience. there is no doubt Nagarjuna was enlightened, of course Buddha was, and the many Theravadan, Mahayana, and Tibetan teachers who say the same thing. you will never see a Buddhist after enlightenment saying "oh it's all the same, practice whatever you want", no, but you will find practitioners from other traditions doing that, and that's fine. because like i said, basically all traditions except for buddhism have the same goal. so its obvious why they feel that way. only someone with a thorough knowledge of buddhism understands the subtle differences. it's not superiority, its just a deeper more subtle understanding likewise, the experience of Advaitan oneness is not superior to ordinary ignorance state, it's just a deeper understanding. it's all relative.

Hi Silicon. thank you for your response it is appreciated, and i gave it some thought. it is not just my opinion at all that Buddhist view and fruit differs from Hinduism (whether its orthodox, vedanta advaita, kashmir shivaism, whatever) it is just the Buddhist view and I think it is a fact for anyone who has looked into both traditions.. i myself was initiated into an Advaita Shivaite lineage. the goals are just different. some equate Brahman with Dharmakaya, and that is fine, whatever, but even if you accept that.. the goal of Buddhism is not to 'merge' with Dharmakaya. whereas the goal of a Hindu is complete absorption into Brahman, the paradigm of Buddhism is completely different. Complete and eternal absorption is impossible as taught in the first turning of the wheel, this sort of absorption only leads you to eons of bliss in a formless realm but eventually you get sucked back in. hence, not true liberation. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartl04.htm i'm going to quote my friend here, as i'm lazy: "In Dharmakaya, there's no concept of individuality. Like the "ice cube" having melted into water, there is just vast open spacious, centerless, Awareness and without boundary. This is where things differ with the Hindu model. This is the final result of the Hindu path, absorption(extinction) into Brahman. Buddhism and Dzogchen has a different view. A different fruit. The goal of Buddhism is the attainment of the 3 Kayas. Dharmakaya manifests continuously without interruption. The next level of manifestation would be the Sambhogakaya. This is somewhat individualized, the Rainbow Body of Light. A being at this level is not incarnate. However, they do have tremendous power of Compassion (thugje). That level of Being automatically manifests "blessings" and positive energy towards all sentient beings. There is no "vow" at that level. Nor is there an intention to do anything. This "thugje" manifestation is completely spontaneous and just happens. Just like the sun in the sky, has no intention to emanate the warming and nurturing rays of light upon the Earth. This Being is completely beyond all limits. They could manifest infinite numbers of Light-Bodies to accomplish their mission. This is all Sambhogakaya stuff. Next, is emanation into the phystical world and we call this Nirmanakaya. This level is even more individual than Sambhogakaya. BUT don't get confused here, wherever there is Dharmakaya, there is instantly Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. The three levels are inseparable."

the differences are very subtle, and very difficult to grasp for someone stuck in eternalist views http://www.khandro.net/doctrine_dharmakaya.htm

that is Brahma, not Brahman. All of the Hindu Gods are talked about in Buddhism as living in the God realm and suffering from excess pride and delusions of grandeur. lol. this is quite obvious if you read Hindu mythology, i took a class on the topic and found them quite ridiculous! why anyone would want to worship these beings is beyond me. noted, thank you. but i feel its important to differentiate as my approach, and that of most buddhist traditions, is to have solid conceptual understanding as a framework for realizing the subtle difference of complete realization. this includes understanding the difference between Monism [Eternalism], Nihilism [Nothing-ism] and Buddhism. this topic is covered in every introductory text in Vajrayana such as Words of My Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche

Hi, i'm in China at the moment and that site is blocked for some reason. maybe Lions go against the Red Communist way, what is it?

not alive: all the great mystical teachers, emphasis on Buddha, but also Laozi, Zhuanzi, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, St John of teh Cross, Teresa of Avila, Guru Padmasambhava, Garab Dorje, Milarepa, Baal Shem Tov, Irina Tweedie as well as her Guru alive: Dalai Lama (i'm seeing him in Oct, very excited), Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, all Mahamudra/Dzogchen/Zen/Insight masters out there. my interest is very focused right now holy balls that picture is crazy

hey Squatting Monkey, i'm glad you enjoyed the links. they are gold mines especially the blog. methods are very similar among traditions. self inquiry of zen could be similiar to self inquiry of Ramana Maharshi. Tantric Yoga is also similiar in Hinduism and Buddhism (Tibetan), Kundalini yoga and Chandali (Tummo) yoga for example is very similiar. likewise all traditions have meditation and maybe even some sort of mindfulness practice. the difference though, like i said earlier, is the view. I had a really good conversation yesterday with the person that runs the blog which I linked you too. He clarified things for me further... the differences are very subtle, but very paramount and important the experience is the same, non duality, but without the right view your mind distorts the experience and brings it back to the Self, identifying with everything. thus you see in Hinduism such statements as "I am everything", or "you are that", its the identification with everything that is the problem. the tendency of hindu advaita is to look for a source of phenomena, a 'ground of being', or some sort of God, Brahman, something or other. maybe Taoism is similiar. i don't know, but what I do know is that in Buddhism complete realization is seeing that between source and manifestation there is no difference, no duality. Hindu non duality focuses on the background, and identifies with the background. a permeating essence, God. or it could go the other way and identify with the foreground. but in Buddhist non-duality there is no background, and there is no foreground. this is an example of identification with phenomena-- Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." Do you see how Self is imposed onto reality? that is wrong view in the Buddhist sense. "It is non-dual, but it is resorting back to a Self. Once a practitioner succeeded in bringing this background to foreground, it is understood that the Background is an illusion. Only the tendency to divide blinding us, there cannot be a Source and Manifestation. Like hearing sound, an Advaidin says Awareness is the isness or presence of sound. But Buddhism sees Sound as Presence itself."

this is a great site by a very enlightened person who you can email directly if you have questions http://www.heartofnow.com/ I'm going to post here with the assumption that you are actually interested in experiencing non-duality and not just reading about it it should be understood though that non-duality is very different in Buddhism than all other religions. the difference is the Right View. if you do not have the view of emptiness you will ALWAYS sink into an Advaita experience, a 'oneness' with all phenomena. the same goes for any other tradition. they all basically talk about the same type of experience, this is NOT enlightenment which is the goal of Buddhist practice. this is because the view is wrong and the realization is tainted. its not final. the wrong view is when you give phenomena 'substance', and believe that there is some eternal essence to all reality and to the "Self" "I am That" is wrong view, some say that they have "no view" but that isn't true, those are just words.. and people try to be clever. the view of emptiness found only in Buddhism gives you a truly clear view free of misconceptions and anything to hang onto, thus a crystal clear realization comes free of delusion. cause and effect, right view --> perfect enlightenment. I'm not trying to sound like a sectarian fundamentalist, not at all. my focus of study is Comparative Religion. i've come to this through intensive analysis. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html 7 stages of Experience, written by someone who has traveled the path. no one without the right view will get past stage 4 all the best, mikael

you said, in the Kunlun thread, I guess this is what you meant? do you have any other sources for this impending Armageddon? do you realize that basically every generation throughout history thinks that the world will end soon?

this does not belong on this forum. off-topic is much better suited